Sat., April 7, 2018, 11:00 a.m.-NoonHunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Sat., March 24, 2018,
2:00-4:00 p.m. Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Sat., March 17, 2018,
11:00a.m.-Noon Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Wed, February 28, 2018,
7:00-8:30 p.m. Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Sat., February 17, 2018,
11:00 a.m.-Noon
Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Sat., January 13, 2018,
2:00-3:00 p.m.
Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Salt Lake County GOP Meet the
Candidate Meetings for 2018
3-27-18 Herriman Library, 5380 Main St,
Herriman, UT 84096, 6-8 pm
4-2-18 Riverton Library,
12877 S 1830 W, Riverton Utah 84065, 7-9 pm
4-4-18 Sandy Library, 10100 Petunia
Way, Sandy, UT 84092, 6-8 pm
4-7-18 Hunter Library Meeting Room,
4740 W 4100 S, West Valley City, UT 84120, 1-3 pm
4-9-18 Whitmore Library, 2197 Fort
Union Blvd, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 7:15-8:45 pm
4-10-18 Millcreek Library, 2266 E
Evergreen Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84109, 6-8 pm
County Convention Friday, April 13th Meet and Greet 7 pm
to 9:30 pm Saturday, April 14, 2018, Meet and
Greet 7 am Call to Order, 10 am Cottonwood High School 5715 South 1300
East, Murray 84121
Note: I was not in the legislature in 2018. (I am running in 2018 and hope to be back in 2019)
Below
is what I posted last year. As the ratings/rankings come in for 2018
for my current representative, I will be posting them below. See the
bottom of this post for additional links.
These will start with Rep. Winder for 2018 and me for 2016 and be updated for 2018 as the ratings/rankings come in.
Winder 2018 Votes for the General Session are at:
Unlike what I have always done, there are no public postings yet for all votes together, but you can look up each bill vote at le.utah.gov
(2011, 2012, 2015 votes are also shown on this blog. Look in March of each year)
Winder 2018 Utah Grassroots, 31%, tied for 53 of 75, Average House 46%
Winder: 34% lifetime average, tied for 53 of 75, Average House 46% http://www.utahgrassroots.org/annual/
Cox: 2016 Utah Grassroots, 57%, tied for 11th of 75, (Average House 36%)
Cox: 69% lifetime average, tied for 11th of 75, Average House 47%
For Immediate Release
Contact: Don Guymon
for Constitutional Defense Committee - Utah Republican Party
Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee
Republican leaders clarify intent of special meeting and new bylaw language
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Salt Lake City, UT. Don Guymon,
spokesperson for the Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense
Committee (“CDC”), released the following statement to correct false
information, reported in the news, regarding the purpose and outcome of
the Saturday, February 24, 2018 meeting of its governing body, the State
Central Committee (SCC):
The SCC meets regularly, and sometimes
monthly, as needed, to address Party business, including organizing for
caucuses and elections. The 2018 Caucus takes place on Tuesday, March
20. For this reason, in accordance with our rules, the SCC members
called a special meeting on Saturday, February 24, to address Caucus
preparation, budget issues, and bylaw modifications, including
modification of an existing bylaw that has been under discussion since
2013.
State statute authorizes political parties to challenge the candidacy of any candidate who violates party rules.
Additionally, Justice Scalia in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on California Democratic Party vs. Jones stated:
In no area is the political association's right to exclude more
important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often
determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues,
and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning
the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a
special place, and accords a special protection, for that
process...because the moment of choosing the party's nominee is the
crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be
translated into concerted action, and hence to political power…
Since 2015, candidates have been required to certify they will not
violate the party rules, but the bylaw lacked enforcement language.
Under the new bylaw language, a candidate who willingly files to run,
using a method contrary to Republican Party rules, temporarily forfeits
membership in the Party, for the duration of the election cycle.
These changes were made in consultation with legal counsel and in
compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Utah Code Section
20A-8-401-(2a) . This Court precedent was confirmed in the Party’s
recent successful constitutional challenge to election law changes,
which the Utah Legislature passed in 2014 (Senate Bill 54). It is SB54
that is unconstitutional and is the subject of the current lawsuit.
If the Republican Party Executive Committee chooses to enforce this
bylaw change, it does not affect any candidate already filed to run, and
during the 2018 election cycle, it only applies to U.S. House Districts
1 and 2, so that no already filed candidate will be impacted.
For more information, Contact Don Guymon
[Update: Some additional comments from me]
For a week, prior to the February 24, 2018 SCC meeting, I told backers of the amendment for Bylaws 8, that I would not vote for it as it changed the rules in the middle of the election and could cause my opponent to forfeit his party membership this election. They came back with a narrower change, but I still said no. the next morning, Saturday, the had a new version that didn't directly affect any existing officeholder or candidate and I said I would look at it.
It
is hard to fire an attorney you never hired. The questions raised were
IF the SCC ever approved him in September. Other questions were if he
was working for the party or the chair and if his opinions were for the
party or the chair, and what his fee was. It is very possible if the
vote was taken at the January meeting the results would have been the
same.
There are 3 attorneys helping with the lawsuit. They are still there.
The SCC finally was given a chance to consent or not for an Attorney the
chair wanted as the party attorney and had been using since last fall
without SCC approval. That approval was asked for on February 24 and voted
down.
Both 20A-8-101 and 401 say the party did not violate state law by passing the bylaw changes re: membership. Neither the Utah Supreme Court or the initial federal judge would take
away our QPP status because of the party Constitution and Bylaws and the
Democrats tried. That is still pending in Denver. Until the party acts,
and not just threatens, there is no case.
I specifically stated that the first 2 versions of the bylaw proposal I
told them I wouldn't vote for it and gave them nightmare reasons why I
would not. When they sent me the last version prior to the meeting that
didn't affect any existing office holders or candidates directly, I said
I would look at it. I did ask questions at the meeting and was TOLD
that the Lt. Gov didn't have the specified authority to remove us from
QPP status. They were quoting attorneys not in the room, and Lt. Gov.
Spencer Cox memo from 2016. I am not an attorney. I have read and
sponsored bills dealing with Title 20A in state code.
The 14th amendment also uses the word State and not Political Party. How
did the state allow a pilot program allowing some county clerks to have
same day voter registration and not other counties?
I want to give the Utah Policy credit for this update: "Editor's note: A
previous version of this article said Mitt Romney would be kicked out of
the party because of the bylaw change. The Utah GOP State Central
Committee wrote the change in such a way that nearly all of the 2018
candidates would not be affected. We regret the error."
No current 2018 candidates are affected, including Mitt Romney,
For 2018, Only congressional District 1 and 2 where no GOP candidates
are currently gathering signatures including Rob Bishop or Chris
Stewart.
It is not a new bylaw.
The state party has
required, in the past, candidates to state if they agree with the party
platform, etc. and if they didn't, what they didn't agree with. Some
counties have had that as well. What
passed Feb. 24th was that has extended to races not just multi-county, with
some teeth to those that don't follow our C&B for elections, with
that going into effect for the 2018 election for just the US House
Congressional District 1 and 2 races, where no GOP member has filed
using signatures at this point.
There is no purity club. Bernie Sanders could apply to run, register as a
republican say that he agreed with none of the bylaws and run in 2018
for the 3rd congressional district and get elected if the voters wanted
him and if he moved here before he was elected. If he ran in the 2nd
this year, and followed the party rules to get elected, and was elected
he could. All that was asked re: party platform was to publicly disclose
what they agreed with and what they didn't with the party platform. That requirement has existed for years.
There were 6 items on the agenda, and only one was bylaw changes. There
was a vote to stop the meeting after the 1st item and that failed, there
was a vote to stop after the top 4 items and that failed to pass. Same
with after 5 items. The people that wanted to stay, stayed.
Carrie Dickson insisted on creating a proviso for the 2018 election at
the bottom vs having the language in the middle of the bylaw. Bob Bernick either doesn't understand that, has been given
bad info, or is intentionally misleading. Also, there was no vote on
Saturday for the caucus committee as Rob didn't have a list to present.
Bob is reporting that was voted on Saturday, where it wasn't.
If you are concerned about the SCC, you do have to realize my State Representative was also elected last year to be a member of the committee, but resigned prior to the first meeting we had. His sister has been a good moderating, win-win, influence on the committee. He has not been involved, one way or the other, even though he could have been.
[Update: The bill was amended to remove the ADA concern for the bill, but it still has a major life safety concern as stated below]
In 2011, during my first session as a new legislator, I heard the phrase, Dead kids make bad laws. I asked for more information and found that legislators, wanting to protect kids, have sometimes over reacted when a child dies in creating new laws. The goal was good, but they didn't take take to look at the different ramifications of the proposed law. In some cases it has taken years to undo the damage of the bad rushed bill.
This bill: amends the International Building Code and International Fire Code regarding: hardware height on a door for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill; and door operations provisions for locks and bolt locks, and latching and unlatching, for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill.
But there are dead kids, so the bill has to pass to make parents feel safer.
If the bill were to pass, is there a simple amendment that would save lives?
Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.
What will that do?
It will allow children to get out of a classroom faster during an emergency and could save lives.
Won't that gut the bill?
No, there are already countless existing building code approved "barricade classroom function" locks on the market and many of the existing classroom looks can be field modified to allow the door to be locked from the inside of the room and not just the outside.
There is only one lock manufacturer that makes an aftermarket barricade classroom lock that can be opened from the outside with a special key that is the target of the bill. If the bill is amended, that lock won't be installed in schools, but other building code approved locks can be installed.
Won't that cost the school district more money? Not necessarily. The more expensive "Mortise" type locks, can be field modified saving money, providing the security and safety. The less expensive "Cylinder" type locks can be replaced with less expensive locks that allow the door to be locked from either the inside or the outside with a key, but allow the children on the inside to get out without a key or slowing them down.
Is there any other problems with the bill? Yes
for decades, the US Department of Justice has determined that the combination of the current International Building Code and the Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities ICC A117.1 is equivalent to the building design requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAAG) without dragging the architect into a civil rights law for liability.
As currently written, I believe SB 87 violates both ICC A117.1 and ADAAG and would NOT allow someone in a wheelchair to lock the door, but more importantly unlock the door to get out of the classroom.
Are you saying that in your opinion that SB 87 as currently drafted violates ADA and could open architects, district and the state to lawsuits re: ADA? Yes
So is the bill as originally drafted worse that than passing nothing? Yes
Is any related bill needed? Good question.
Any classroom I have ever seen has a lock on it that can be secured to protect the occupants, but the traditional "Classroom Function" lock requires a key to be used to lock the door from the outside (protects the teacher from being locked out and protects students from being dragged into a classroom and locked in and harmed. That isn't bad, but in the new age of shootings, it doesn't allow the door to be locked from the inside. The door always opens from the inside without a key in one operation.
The newer building code complaint "barricade classroom function" locks are the same as the old ones, but also allow someone on the inside to lock the door with a key. In a shooting situation, this is quicker and safer, but still allows someone on the inside (including in a wheelchair) to open the door with one operation and no key.
IF the Utah legislature wants to require certain new school classrooms to have the barricade classroom function locks, the ones that meet current code and allow only one operation to get out of the room and requires no key to get out of the room, they could substitute or amend the bill to require that.
Should the current bill pass? No
Can it be amended? Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.
Is there a better option? Yes, debate whether or not it is good policy to require certain new classrooms to have the newer code complient locks that allow locking from both sides of the door.
What about the State Fire Marshall's office? If you go to the Governor's office, you limit what the state fire marshall's office can say and do, and they can not create policy. I personally met yesterday with the person in the office that gave the sponsor the language to change the building code. If Lines 48 and 102 were changed from "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines., he would not be personally opposed to the bill.
Disclaimer. I am an architect who has be using the building codes and has been designing to meet ADA and ICC A117 for decades.
In
2016 I voted FOR 2 Homeless bills, designed to help the homeless and
AGAINST the one taking away Midvale's right to have any say in the
shelter they had being year round or not. This last year, 2017, I was
not in the House of Representatives and did
NOT vote for the bill taking way West Valley's or South Salt Lake's
ability to have any control as to where Mayor McAdams wanted to put the
new shelter. The proposed locations were terrible.
As a Rotary member,
we have been helping a center with a great record of helping single
parents get housing and employment.
http://www.familysupportcenter.org/lifestart-village/ After the bill passed in 2017, I provided specific location issues for sites proposed, and even the size of some of them. See: https://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2017/03/salt-lake-county-homeless-shelter.html I
didn't say it shouldn't be in any one city, including ours. I
personally spoke to Mayor McAdams more than once on this issue and
attended all the public meetings. Each city had a place that would
actually work, but they were not asked as I stated. Proposing on
locating a homeless shelter next to a school for teen age girls that
were expecting or recently became a single parent was more than silly,
and that was just one of the several locations proposed. The Legislature
voting to give the county mayor that power was dangerous. (Disclaimer,
Sen. McAdams was the senator sponsor of several of my bills in 2011 and 2012
including my bi-partisan congressional district redistricting map
proposal).
West Valley City officials told their representatives in the House and Senate that the Homeless Bill had this problem and not to vote for it as drafted. All House Members voted for the bill initially, (one in Utah County eventually voted no) including the ones that heard George Chapman in the House Standing Committee tell them what the bill would do to city rights and that it needed to be amended. Our local State House Member voted for the bill.
One West Valley City State Senator, Sen. Thatcher, brought this issue up to the Senate during floor debate and had the bill passage put on pause, (circled) until the Governor's office promised that the cities would not be railroaded if the bill passed. It is surprising the House didn't have the same discussion.When that did happen, Sen. Thatcher was one of the first to cry foul. Now that the proposal is to build the facility near the Jordan River Parkway, there is a new proposal to turn the Parkway over to the State as a State Park, with the main reason the Homeless near the river. It would have been better not to locate the facilities near the river in the first place. It there any one thing that started the problem to where Homelessness in the areat got out of hand? I believe yes. Many of the homeless that were downtown until the recent relocation were from out of state, and they were sent by other cities to Salt Lake City when past Mayor Becker announced: in 2014 to 2015:
"We are 90 percent of the way with the housing-first model toward
eliminating homelessness for our chronically homeless in this city. It
is an incredible national achievement that is recognized every day."—Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, at the Poverty Summit, Aug. 29, 2015
Utah has its own share of problems in this area, without trying to solve it for other places in the nation. We will do better to follow programs that work, such as the Family Support Center LifeStart Village and not removing state and county funding for it and providing for programs that have not been tested or have proven to fail.
I believe we must stand up and be heard or watch our
constitutionally protected rights disappear. We can't continue to let
government take over our lives.
That
was the reason I ran for office when my State Representative, Ron
Bigelow, stepped down to help the Governor at the end of 2010, and it is
still so today.
It was one of the reasons I was awarded the Libertas 2016 Defenders of Liberty Award.
For
2015 and 2016, I was given a 100% rating from the Utah Taxpayers
Association for voting against tax increases and looking out for the
taxpayers. I also received a Salt Lake Chamber 2015 and 2016 Business
Champion award for working to help Utah businesses grow. I worked hard
to make sure the legislature didn’t ignore the idea of replacing the
prison in Draper, which I believed would have saved over $100 Million,
which has since been shown to be true.
I
had the opportunity to serve in the Utah House of Representatives in
2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016. During that time I had a reputation of being
willing to speak up and to fight for and vote for what I believed was
right, no matter the opposition.
Bills I worked on are covered in more detail here:
I also had the reputation of reading through all of the bills I would vote on, and after the 2016 session a comedy song joked
that I might have known other legislators' bills better than they did.
During my service, I had one of the best floor attendance records of
anyone in the House, with the exception of one rare House Judiciary
Standing Committee meeting called during floor time where I missed 12
votes in 2015. They were the only ones I missed that year. I wanted to
be in the chamber during debates and voting so I could hear both sides
of an issue and see if a bill was ready, or needed to be amended or
voted down. "Motion to Amend" was something I said more than once. I
always voted for or against the bill no matter who the sponsor was or
what party they belonged to.
I
have been asked by many in the district to run again. I would
appreciate your support, whether by endorsement for 2018 or campaign
contribution.
For contributions, checks can be sent to:
Fred C. Cox, Campaign Fund
4466 Early Duke St.
West Valley City, UT 84120-5723
Online donations can be made though my Square account for
Whether or not you agree that the caucus and convention system which did NOT favor
the incumbent, wealthy or famous, as being a good thing, the New Count
My Vote 2.1 is worse.
Currently you can at least watch what your
legislator does during the session and if you don't like it, you can
either run or help someone run against them by filing after the session
ends.
CMV 2.1 changes the deadline to be selected by the party OR to submit signatures by the first business day after March 1st., lines 469, 476). (worse than CMV2.0)
They are saying we have to have the caucus and county and state party
conventions during February, when the Utah Legislature is meeting!
This takes away part of the accountability of these elected officials.
Most of the bills will pass after the new proposed filing deadline and
it will take time prior to qualify and so it would be two years until
you have a chance to hold your State Representative accountable or
perhaps four years for your State Senator or Governor depending on their
end of term.
So much for accountability to the people. Is this initiative is written to protect incumbents?
Do we call this Count My Vote or Blank Check Vote?
IF they CAN constitutionally combine an initiative and a referendum of
advance legislation, which the constitution has as separate powers and
the state law has different requirements for, the state constitution is
very clear a referendum can not repeal bills passed by a 2/3 vote of
both legislative houses. This is written to include repeal of those,
even before they exist, violating the part of the State Constitution
they are using to create CMV2.
Other major problems?
While it will cost less to get on the primary ballot under CMV2, it will cost a lot more to actually run and win elections making lobbyists and corporations, or the wealthy and famous even more powerful in elections.
There are no geographical requirements for signatures within a district or state so the potential of fly over counties and cities and area becomes much worse. What should Count My Vote 2.1 actually change?
IF they really want to change elections, they should get rid of straight
party voting as people can now get on the general election ballot as an
unaffiliated candidate with signatures bypassing the political parties,
and have been able to for many years. They just have a harder time
wining with straight party voting. CMV2 does nothing to help
unaffiliated voters. That would.
The next thing they should look at is Ranked Choice Voting and not the
expensive run off primaries that are part of CMV2, that have poor voter
turnout and cost millions each election.
