Senator. I was not happy you voted to change Utah's flag in committee
Saturday, January 21, 2023
Saturday, January 22, 2022
Other that reducing water usage, 2 items that would help restore Great Salt Lake Water Levels to reasonable heights include, one, reducing the evaporation of Utah Lake, which loses 1/2 of its water that way.
Reducing evaporation for Utah Lake, which could supply much of the west bench of SLco with water, is not an easy solution.
The other item is removing a regulation of the state to Retain a certain amount of rain water during site plan storm water design for projects over an acre. This would cost almost nothing and may reduce the costs of construction.
The state for at least many areas and for many years has required a certain amount of Detention, to act as a shock absorber to reduce flooding, but it has been recent, the last couple of years, that Retention has been required, even when the infrastructure is available to handle the storm water with reduced speed.
Detain, slow down, hold temporarily.
Retain, hold and not release at all.
In some locations, there is not a storm water drain system and no release is available, but when it is, it should be used. Slowing the flow is one thing, but eliminating some of the flow through retention can create problems and it complicates and can increase the cost of site development.
Some argue that Retention helps clean water, but actually Detention can do the same thing. In some cases, putting water into the ground can help and that can be handled locally, but this is not a good idea to have a one size fits all regulation. I spoke to an engineer from West Valley on Friday, and he hates the current requirement. Several Civil Engineers I have spoken to believe the general requirement is a mistake.
the document that mandates storm water retention when releasing into any municipal system.
Look in section 220.127.116.11.2
Please change the rules or create a law to supersede the rules.
Thursday, March 25, 2021
We not only need someone to show up to the meetings, (I have 100% attendance), we need someone that can work with others.
At the end of 2019 and the beginning on 2020, I was the original sponsor (1 of 5) for the Utah 2019 Tax referendum. Working with voters throughout the state, both liberal, conservative, and everything in between, and as volunteers, we were able to gather over 170,000 signatures in 29 counties, exceeding the 116,000 required signatures in 15 counties. Because of the success of our team, the Legislature and the Governor repealed 2019 SB 2001, instead of facing the backlash of the voters that fall.
There are 180 SCC members Statewide, representing tens of thousands of county delegates, 4 thousand state delegates, and hundreds of thousands of party affiliates. The meetings have been in St George during snow storms, Fillmore, Park City, Erda / Grantsville, Ogden, etc. I have have had 100% attendance, even before being elected in 2011, and since. The meetings often take all day, and have been in the past, argumentative. Some are wondering why I would run again?
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.
Past Party and Related Community Service
• Utah State House of Representatives, January 2015 through December 2016.
• Utah State House of Representatives, January 2011 through December 2012.
• Utah Republican State Central Committee, 2011 to present.
• Utah Republican State Executive Committee, 2017 to 2019.
• Utah Republican State Delegate 2002-2003, 2005 to 2012, 2013, 2015 to 2016, 2018 to present.
• Salt Lake County Republican Bylaws Committee, 2013 to present.
• Salt Lake County Republican Delegate, 2010-2012, 2014 to 2016.
• Salt Lake County Republican Central Committee, 2010-2012, 2014 to 2016.
• Salt Lake County Republican Legislative District Chair, August 2010 to January 2011.
Send an email to
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
I am Yes for A B C and D
No on E F and G
For E, Sen Mayne does a good job. Hunting and fishing are essential and undeniable parts of Utah’s cultural identity and economy and protected in statute.
We love and cherish many things about our great state. Few are so vital they must be enshrined in our state’s most sacred document.
The Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and our Utah Constitution guarantee our rights to keep and bear arms and
individuals’ rights to protect themselves and their families. These sacred constitutional liberties are not about hunting and fishing. We should not dilute them by adding to them or defining them as something they are not.
If we do not carefully scrutinize what goes into it, the entire document will lose value. That is not to say that we should not protect hunting and fishing—we absolutely should. But if we do not draw a line between rights that are fundamental and privileges that extend from those rights, we will no longer be able to tell the difference.
Nobody is threatening our right to hunt and fish. Any threat is hypothetical or imaginary. The Utah Division of Wildlife Re-sources is an agency of outdoor sports professionals and enthusiasts dedicated to preserving and managing Utah’s vibrant hunting and fishing traditions, culture, and industry. The protections and promotion that they provide is woven deep into the laws of our state and are not going anywhere.
Legislative supporters of Amendment E admit that the amendment will not make any meaningful difference in how hunting and fishing is managed in the state. It will have no meaningful impact on people’s access to hunting and fishing. These activities are and will continue to be open to all. Without the amendment, you will still be able to hunt and fish, and the state will continue to promote and protect these activities as they always have.
No one is even considering taking away our hunting and fishing rights, so why are we considering inserting unnecessary language into our constitution?
By adding this amendment, we will dilute our fundamental rights, like our right to protect ourselves and families, our right to free speech, and our right to peaceably assemble.
Vote NO to protect the power of our constitutional rights. Vote no on amendment E.
- Senator Karen Mayne and Representative Marsha Judkins
On Amendment F: "As the Utah Constitution now dictates, the session would still need to begin in January and run for only 45 consecutive days, with the exception of federal and state holidays. The only change included in Constitutional Amendment F is removing the specific January start date from the Constitution and instead specifying the January start date in statute. The Legislature would be enabled to set the start date by passing a bill. This will allow for more adaptability in determining a start date."
Currently citizens, businesses, taxpayers, and legislators can plan in advance for years for the start of the session. Will they also change the candidate filing deadlines at a wim? I don't trust the flexibility as written. The session may be one or two days longer with the holidays but the session date could shift greatly.
Amendment G, according to the official voter guide and the unbiased calculation section, is expecting to help balance the budget by allowing $600 Million to be used from the education fund to pay for something currently funded by the general fund. It basically removes $600 Million from the education fund per year. The UEA and others cut a deal so this would not be worse than it could be. I doubt higher ed got such a deal. Since sales taxes are better than expected and income tax is worse than expected as of July 1st, the deal could be worse than expected. I am a no vote on G. Is it better than the tax reform? At least the voters get to decide.
from my friend Judy
"I have tried to keep politics off of JUDY’S CORNER except to copy something that someone needed from the 2019 Tax Referendum page but I have to repost this because of the unethical flyer sent out by the Utah State Republican Party in retaliation to a flyer sent out to several select areas by the Democratic State Party. This flyer unlike the Democratic one is absolutely a lie and FALSE!
Please read and tell your friends that this is flyer is unprofessional and deceitful.
It has just come to my attention that several Democrats that not only voted against SB2001 but helped to get signatures to repeal have had a mailer sent out by the Republican party saying they didn’t try to stop the tax on food!
Remember all Democrats voted AGAINST SB2001.
Please if you are in Representative Suzanne Harrison, Represenative Elizabeth Weight, Carol Spackman Moss, Representative Brian King, Rep Joel K Briscoe or Represenative Karen Kwan’s area tell your neighbors it is rubbish! You can even have them call me and I can tell them the truth!
I just addressed an issue that said the Democrats were unethical because a news article questioning the integrity of a Republican that was based on fact which caused a stir. That article was based on fact, the flyer sent out against these individuals is not!
Shame on those who sent out the flyer! Let’s hope that all that participate in these shenanigans down in defeat!!!
Last week it was the Democratic Party that tried to tell voters in special areas that specific Republicans voted for SB2001 when they didn’t.
This type of campaign strategy does not work in Utah!
I DETEST Dirty Politics!
One week left....stay tuned!"
One Representative voted to raise the tax on food and fuel, take $680 Million from public ed and add taxes on several services and change the way we fund roads. In otherwards they voted for 2019 SB 2001. Now they send out a flyer bragging they voted to repeal that bill (after we got enough signatures to put the bill on the ballot through the referendum process) and tried to imply someone calling them on their original vote was untruthful? Perhaps this flyer deserves some kind of Pinocchio award? Deceptive at best.
The Utah House and Senate Leadership races is an important vote. It is a mistake again, to have the vote so close to election day and not later as the votes will not all be counted for the legislature. In 2010 I was not a member when the vote took place. In 2012, I did not know by the time of the leadership vote if I won or not so I was not able to vote. In 2014, when I did win, I again did not know yet and was not allowed to vote. The Democrats have delayed their vote in the past for this reason. Hopefully, enough people will turn their ballots in now so on election night there will be a better view of likely house and senate members. The final vote isn't until the start of the session but by then, traditionally the races are done and everyone votes for the leadership of both parties as was chosen in November. I believe the leadership vote should be delayed 2 weeks. Perhaps if it appears the current speaker has lost or could lose on election night, I will get my wish.
Leadership races for the state House and Senate should be at least 2 or 3 weeks after election day so those that are voting are decided by the voters.