Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Utah Republican State Central Committee

Fred C. Cox a member of the Utah House of Representatives
for the Utah Republican State Central Committee

The caucus system is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can run an election campaign against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds. I will work to defend the caucus system.

As a State Delegate, I have been concerned with the efforts by some to move more and more power to the State Central Committee and away from the State Delegates. I have attended many State Central Committee meetings to be aware of what is being done. As a member of the State Central Committee, I will work to protect the balance of power at the grassroots level.

• Utah State House of Representatives, District 32, January 2011 to present.
• AIA Utah, Government Affairs Committee, January 2008 to 2010. Assisting with tracking, suggesting, and
coordination of bills and regulations affecting the practice of architecture.
• Utah Republican State Delegate 2002-2003, 2005-2011.
• Salt Lake County Republican House District 32 Chair, August 2010 to January 2011.
• ChamberWest Regional Chamber of Commerce Government Action Committee, Nov. 2010 to present

• Campaign Volunteer and/or Consultant for the following:
Ron Bigelow, Utah House of Representatives, 1994 to 2011.
Jason Chaffetz, U.S. House of Representatives, Utah 3rd District, May 2008 to 2011.
Kevin Fayles, Candidate for Mayor, West Valley City, UT, 2009.
Dave Hansen, Utah State Republican Party Chair, March 2009 to June 2009.
Cherilyn Eagar, 2010 US Senate Race, May 2009 to May 2010,
Tim Bridgewater, 2010 US Senate Race, May and June 2010.
Morgan Philpot, 2010 U.S. House of Representatives, Utah 2nd District, June 2010 to November 2010.
Daniel W. Thatcher, 2010 Utah State Senate, District 12, August 2010 to November 2010

• Church Based community service

• Licensed Utah Architect since 1991
• Licensed Idaho Architect since 2008
• Licensed Oklahoma Architect since 2011
• Member of the American Institute of Architects since 1991
• Member of ChamberWest since 2007



Also, listen to my comments between 43:06 to 47:35 for the final debate on 3rd S HB 116

Caucus System:

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Redistricting numbers and ideas.

OK, you are dying to start figuring out where you want Utah's congressional districts or Utah Senate or House districts boundaries to go, but you don't have the software yet and just want to start with real numbers. You can go to the Census Website or start with some basic numbers found here:

US 2010 Census numbers downloaded from their website:

County Populations:

Utah Senate and House District Populations - 2010 Census based on boundaries not adjusted by SB113.

City and Town Populations:

Just for fun idea based on the above numbers:

A proposed map of the 4 Congressional districts. (approx. - not official, just my idea)

The numbers backing up the above concept map:

Friday, March 25, 2011

Regarding the repeal of former HB 477

March 25,2011

Representative Christensen proposes the following intent language be spread upon the pages of the House Journal regarding the repeal of former HB 477

The intent of the Utah House of Representatives in voting to repeal former HB 477 is to allow a working group that has been formed to meet and study and hold public hearings over a fixed time period and then recommend to the Utah Legislature those changes in current statute that will result in the best public policy for our state. Those committee members consist of assigned Legislators, business, media and community leaders and other respected professionals and members of the public all of whom have significant backgrounds and experience in the matters encompassed within the current code known as "GRAMA". ( 63G-2-101 et. sec.)

Of great concern to the House is the current lack of sufficient express recognition and protection in statute for the reasonable privacy and confidentiality interests of individual citizens and constituents who communicate with and share their personal concerns and circumstances with their elected representatives.

The vote to repeal former HB 477 and the formation of the working group and the further dialogue and the ability to reconvene if needed in a later special session as may be called by the Governor with the benefit of such added deliberations are desired by the House to ensure that the interests of all citizens are fully considered and protected through the legislative process.

Motion Passed.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Grama Commitee meeting today

Update on this blog post is at:

I am not going to apologize for voting for HB 477 three times. I believe the existing law needs to be modified. It was the best option presented. Agree or not, I stand by my vote on HB 477.
The only reason I would vote to repeal HB 477 is if I feel we will get a better replacement. Based on today, I have hope that we will, whether or not HB477 is repealed at this time. We will see what happens on Friday. Based on the committee today, the likelihood just got better.
I went to the #grama committee meeting today to see if I believe they will be successful in modifying Grama to work even better. I was impressed with the committee. Many from the media are on it.
David Kirkham (TEA party representative on the committee) has asked for a commitment from several on the #grama committee that they will make sure it will not be cost prohibited for the individual citizen/voter to be able to access public records. That is one the major goals of several I spoke to.

HB116 3sub - Immigration - Bad but Constitutional

The Constitution of the United States grants authority to the federal government to regulate foreign commerce and to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization.
[Citizenship not Immigration]

From the Constitutional Note for HB 116 3rd S:
"The Constitution of the United States grants authority to the federal government to regulate foreign commerce and to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. The United States Supreme Court has also found inherent federal authority to regulate immigration on the basis of federal sovereignty and the power to engage in foreign affairs: this is sometimes referred to as the "plenary power," which in more recent years has been made subject to certain constitutional limits. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893); Hernandez-Carrera v. Carlson, 547 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2009)."

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that grants the Federal Government power over Immigration and prior to the Case Law noted above, the States had that Power.

While I don't agree with HB116 3rd s, voted against it twice, nor do I believe it will help solve the current problem,

Utah getting involved in immigration is Not Unconstitutional. Could it be ruled by a court to be unconstitutional based on Case Law? - Yes.

Also, please note the Oath of Office I took:

I, Fred C. Cox, having been elected (appointed) to the office of
Representative, House District 32
do solemnly swear that I will support, obey and defend the
Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of this State
and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.
Fred C. Cox
Representative, District 32
January 11, 2011 and January 24, 2011

There is nothing that says I would swear to support, obey and defend Case Law, or any existing laws. While I didn't vote for HB 116, (guest worker), I did vote for the other 3 bills that are part of the "Utah Solution".

Monday, March 21, 2011

Governor Hebert wants a new bill

Governor Hebert wants a new bill to replace HB 477 with the following:

"First, they must protect the public's right to know, as transparent and accountable government is essential. Second, they must protect every individual's legitimate right to privacy. Third, they must protect taxpayers against the cost of overreaching "fishing expeditions." "

I hope both the public and the press have better solutions to do just that. I look forward to more people with more ideas. They do have a great list of people to work on it.

While I didn't sponsor HB 477 (Grama Amendments), I agreed to cosponsor it with over 50 others, voted for it with 10 other Republicans and Democrats in Committee and voted for it twice on the floor of the house. Unlike 3rd Sub. HB 116, we had time to read HB 477 before it was debated and voted on. No one ever pressured me to vote for HB 477. I am not going to apologize for voting for it. Agree or not, I stand by my vote on HB 477 because it was the best solution brought forward.

Next time without the one sided press. If the press actually helps craft a bill do you think they will bash it?

For a comparison of the current law and what it would be under HB 477 see:

Thursday, March 17, 2011

2011 Session Voting Record

The voting record I received today.

The totals are as follows

District Number:
Cox of District 32 (R)

Total Votes: 691
Total Eligible Votes: 691
Member Votes: 687
Member Votes Percentage: 99.4%

With Majority: 620
With Majority Percentage: 90.4%

Against Majority: 66
Against Majority Percentage: 9.6%

With Party: 627
With Party Percentage: 91.5%

Against Party: 58
Against Party Percentage: 8.5%

Since many bills sponsored by Democrats were voted for by all the Republicans and Vice versa, the numbers above show that I wasn't as hard to guess as some thought. Many Republicans and Democrats are around 5% against the majority of their party. My 8.5% is higher, but not as high as a couple of Representatives, who were over 15%. Many of the bills were voted down in committee or didn't make it to the floor of the House to vote on them.

I knew I missed a few of votes the last two days while I was over at the Senate trying to get one of my bills though there, and it looks like I only missed 4 votes out of 691. Voting 99.4% of the time.

A link to all of my votes is here:

2011 Session Update

2011 Session Update
What is more important than the Budget?

The Bill HB0221S01 Classic Car Inspections
(allowing some collector 30 year cars to qualify as vintage cars)
Passed both Houses and will be considered by Governor Herbert to be signed in to law.

The other 4 bills I personally sponsored are now listed on the Master Study List for during the 2011 legislative interim sessions. Many other bills were amended with my help. As I committed to do, I was not afraid to speak up which helped some bills to pass and others to fail.

For a great blog about the open atmosphere Speaker Lockhart created and what someone else said about me see:

I am currently on the following committees:
Infrastructure & General Government Appropriations Subcommittee
Public Utilities & Technology House Standing Committee
Judiciary House Standing Committee

The most important bills were the budget bills. Again, for the best description of what passed see:

Several Immigration Bills passed. I voted for most of them with the exception of HB 116 which included a guest worker provision that is likely to be contested in court and I do not believe was helpful to solving the problem.

The Governor signed the HB477 Grama bill. We extended the start date to solve coordination concerns. The press had left the impression they have not been willing to even make suggested changes, just delays. Perhaps this will help.

People agree or don't. It is sad, however that both sides are not being told. The pendulum between records access and the ability to function is important. The amount of public transparency of bills, committees, at the state level is amazing. That is not proposed to change. When I can't get all 5 bills through Leg. Research in over a month, partly because of GRAMA requests, the pendulum has moved too far.

Please also read this:

Also, one of the best articles on why HB 477 is a good bill, from someone that has since changed his mind is at:

If I find that this moves the pendulum too far the other direction in one area, it will be moved back. What isn't being discussed is that we haven't finished fixing the open meetings laws to match technology.

When the law was created, some forms of communications were not specific in the statute. The courts have ruled them included without asking.

provide lots of info, including votes, comments during committees, proposed bills, etc.
I like this quote:

We're big fans of Mark Twain around here. So it is with some trepidation that we ignore some of his most popular advice which is to "never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel."

What is in question are text messages, voice mail, etc. Are they a record or a conversation? They fit a conversation better in my mind.

What if a text occurs and is read during an open meeting? How do we know?

There was a bill by Rep. Powell that would have banned some text messages during an open meeting. It was amended to not solve that yet. I think Texts, if allowed during an open meeting, could be available if related to the meeting. If we ban them, then they need to be allowed to be checked for compliance. Instead of dragging Text messages into GRAMA, we could cover some of them re: an Open Meeting. I expect that should be the conversation for this summer.

For those keeping track, there were 504 bills passed this year.

For more information see:
The main site:
See also:

Fred C. Cox
Rep. District 32