This morning's Standard-Examiner reports on yesterday's House Political Subdivisions Committee hearing, in which House Legislative District 8 Representative Gage Froerer maneuvered to move SB-25, in an amended form containing a retroactivity provision, toward a full debate on the House floor.
In her opening paragraphs, Std-Ex reporter Loretta Park compares the two bills which are now headed for deliberations in the House of Representatives: the newly-amended SB-25 (which contains a retroactivity provision), and HB-164 (which does not.) The bills are near-identical, Ms. Parks reports, except for the provision inserted in the former bill by Rep. Froerer's amendment, which would push the effective date of that bill back to January 1, 2008.
We put up an audio link yesterday, by the way, for those readers who might be interested in hearing yesterday's committee deliberations.
For those who would instead prefer to read a short written digest of yesterday's committee meeting discussions, Ms. Parks provides a good one this morning in her closing paragraphs:
What's obvious from the above text is that there are still a few legislators (like Senator Stowell) who are dragging their feet, and playing lapdog to a handful of highly-conflicted "leadership people," whose primary allegiance seems to be toward the real estate development industry whom they represent in private life, rather than to the citizens of Utah, some of whose fundamental God-given rights to participate in self-government would be callously stripped away in the absence of a bill containing firm retroactivity provisions."...Rep. Gage Froerer, R-Huntsville made an amendment, which he called 'The Powder Mountain amendment.' It pushes the effective date to Jan. 1, 2008.
The amendment was approved unanimously, which surprised the committee chairman, Rep. Fred Hunsaker, R-Logan.
'I suspect this will be a split vote,' Hunsaker said and asked for vocal roll call vote.
'That was no split vote,' said Doris Donat, the committee’s secretary.
But Stowell doubts the House will approve his bill with the amendment.
'I know some of the leadership people are against it,' Stowell said. 'It is a legal law we passed last year.'
Stowell said he is also concerned there will be lawsuits.
'I have a lot of empathy for the people who lost their voting rights,' Stowell said. 'I don’t know if you want to send this to court and also not get this bill out of the House.'
Froerer said at least the amendment will start a discussion with the representatives before the bill hits the House floor.
Also no matter what happens, Froerer expects lawsuits to hit the courts.
'They will either be from the developers or a class-action suit from those who lost their voting rights,' Froerer said.'"
We're also pleased that the entire committee remained un-cowed by the "lawsuit bogeyman;" and we compliment Representative Froerer for doing his own research on the underlying legal issues. As Rep. Froerer commented, there will be litigation "no matter what happens," and we agree with that. If the State of Utah is destined to become mired in a lawsuit however, it's much better that we stand in defense of the fundamental right of citizens to self-govern, and that we occupy the moral high ground, we think.
We'll note in passing that during the many decades we've been actively playing the game of politics, we've never been more proud of any elected officials than we are of Rep. Gage Froerer, and the entire House Political Subdivisions Committee, which is composed of Republicans and Democrats alike. If you take the time to listen to the recording of the committee meeting provided in the link above, we believe you'll detect a sense of exuberance in those committee members, at having "done what's right." "Choosing the right" is always the most satisfying course of action,we believe.
Hopefully the members of the State House of Representatives will see it the same way, pass both bills, and drop the predicament back into the State Senate's lap, where Senator John Valentine, President of the Senate, who has publicly vowed to kill a bill containing retroactivity provisions, will have the opportunity to check his own "moral compass."
And for those readers who would like to become more involved in the process, as the two bills move forward for discussion in the House, we provide a link to the House membership roster, which contains handy contact information, including email links. If all goes well, the full body of the House of Representatives will be the next stop for these two bills; and we know how much our House Reps love hearing from their constituents. Remember, Viktor... it's SB-25 which contains Rep. Froerer's retroactivity amendment.
