KSL and Deseret New please get the right Utah 2012 Election Congressional Map

update: See http://elections.utah.gov/map/district-maps 

I have called KSL several times, including last night, and yet KSL still continues to show incorrect 2012 Election Utah Congressional maps and especially points out wrong 4th district graphics and descriptions.
Deseret News hasn't been much better, and even refused to post my recent comment pointing out the bad map or description.
Does KSL/Deseret News not have links or graphics that are correct?
See:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=18625498
I would think your reporters would be embarrassed to have incorrect graphics shown with their stories. KSL/Deseret News is not helping to serve the public interest, when after 2 months you still can't get it right, confusing the public.
If the 4th District doesn't look like an "L" for liberty and looks more like a squashed peanut, you have the wrong map.
You often show my congressional map substitute 20, which was never voted on, (it came out too late) or even more often the map that passed the senate initially, but which the house never voted on. The final map, Substitute 19 passed both houses by 2/3 vote with both republicans and democrats voting for and against it.
You want the "Enrolled" congressional map version.
To create some correct graphics,
Try the following links:
Most importantly
For anyone to find out what district they live in:
Have them go to the Lt. Governor's website at:
http://elections.utah.gov/map/district-maps
It also has some very cool .pdf maps. If they aren't too light, I would suggest them.
There are also maps at:
http://www.redistrictutah.com/bills-passed-maps/legislative-enrolled-maps
including:
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002enrolled
http://www.redistrictutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Congress_-_SB3002_ENROLLED.kmz
If you use Google Earth, the KMZ file below it (and the other maps) works fine, allowing anyone to zoom up to their house by typing in their address.
The LT. Governor's site works very well, even if it is a little less forgiving on the address. The Lt. Governor's site will tell someone all 4 voting districts they live in, Congressional, State House, State Senate, and State School Board. While it doesn't have the new precinct boundaries yet, it is pretty amazing.
Again, its link is at:
http://elections.utah.gov/map/district-maps
If you don't like any of them, you are welcome to use any of the maps I posted on my blog, with some at:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/11/some-newer-11x17-redistricting-maps.html
Including one .pdf map that shows how the 4th district cuts through West Valley City.
I have attached some numbers generated by the public redistricting website that show the 4th district has 85% of its population from Salt Lake County based on the 2010 Census. (OK, it has the population breakout but you can create the percentages). 38% of the 2nd District's population is from Salt Lake County and 26% of the population of the 3rd District is from Salt Lake County.
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/SB3002EnrolledStats.pdf
You will notice that Juab and Sanpete counties are split between the 2nd and 4th, as well as Utah and Salt Lake Counties. The Deseret News recently incorrectly stated that Juab and Sanpete were all in the 4th.
Fred C. Cox, West Valley City, UT

2012 Utah State Budget

There really is no surplus. Perhaps in February things will look better. Funding public education growth, stop using one time money for on going commitments, reducing debt and no tax increases are great goals that I believe will be hit. The rest will be interesting to see what happens. There are still 2 life-safety items that total $40 to $50 million I would like to see funded, and are not, and we are already over $300 million short initially.

I do think Governor Herbert will get many of his priorities.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53156558-90/tax-education-debt-fund.html.csp

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705396147/House-GOP-on-record-opposing-tax-increases.html

The National Popular Vote Compact option 3

The National Popular Vote Compact is not a good idea. The bill is written expecting the electoral college to be eliminated in the future.

There is only way to put Utah "in play" and that is to give up the "clout" we have under a winner take all system and have 2 of the 6 votes match the overall state vote for president and the other 4 votes match the overall vote for each of the 4 congressional districts.

That could dilute our 6 votes, but might increase voter turnout. It would certainly put Utah more in play for the 2nd and 4th districts. Would it put Utah more of a focus? By diluting our votes, most likely less.

For more reasons not to like this bill, see:

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/11/national-popular-vote-compact.html

Grama got run over by the media or was it the court

Update on this blog post is at:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/04/grama.html

Why was 2011 HB 477 (Government Records Amendments) repealed?
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/03/regarding-repeal-of-former-hb-477.html

Why was 2011 HB 477 created in the first place?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51499750-76/bill-dougall-grama-records.html.csp

What did the bill do, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Research and General Counsel:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/GRAMA-HB477%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf
(Note: this document was originally made public by Rep. Fred C. Cox)

When did the bill come out and when was it first voted on:
March 1, 2011 it was made public, online and 24 hr. notification of public committee meeting, Public committee meeting March 2, 2011 (2 hrs) complete with media testifying against, providing no meaningful suggestions for changes, but providing TV coverage. Committee vote 10 to 0 (bipartisan). March 10th was the last day of session
For the rest of the votes and timeline see:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0477.htm

Public working group recommendations:
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308787058Cost_Timeliness.pdf
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308787007Simplication.pdf
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308786890Emerging_Technology.pdf
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308786801Law_wording.pdf
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52057357-78/group-grama-records-law.html.csp

Additional motivations for changes:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51567840-78/request-records-grama-network.html.csp
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51715159-78/records-county-requests-christensen.html.csp
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51988376-78/amyspencer-constituent-constituents-correspondence.html.csp

How long has Rep. Cox's committee and roll call votes been online?
Almost immediately afterwards on the state website
http://www.le.utah.gov/

How long has Rep. Cox's combined 2011 Session voting record been online?
March 17, 2011
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/03/2011-session-voting-record.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Cox.pdf

For redistricting, who voted to keep the House GOP Caucus open and sponsored a bipartisan (democrat senator co-sponsor) congressional map?
Rep. Fred Cox
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705392649/Lawmakers-approve-new-congressional-districts-amid-partisan-bickering.html?pg=3
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705392613/Utah-lawmakers-to-take-another-crack-at-setting-new-congressional-districts.html?pg=2
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-senator-mcadams-and-rep-cox-modification-of-hat-and-3-stripes

I didn't vote for 2011 HB 116

I didn't vote for 2011 HB 116, If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you can't reward those that bypass the line. They need to be sent to the back of the line. That doesn't mean you should stop treating them like people.

I am in favor of simplifying and fixing legal immigration. I did vote for HB 469 as did most of my GOP colleagues. The Constitutional Note on HB 116 and HB 469 stated:

"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," ....."

While the US Constitution doesn't specify that Immigration is a federal power, any treaties and agreements with other countries are federal powers. Not only is the federal government refusing to solve this problem, it is now blocking the states from fixing it as well. That is wrong and should stop.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51917989-82/469-immigration-116-federal.html.csp

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/06/hb-469-answer-to-immigration-puzzle.html

http://youtu.be/FTpYAW5JXhQ

The Utah Lands Protection Act

The State is currently suing the Federal Government to take control of part of Utah's land. Additional proposals by others include forcing the Federal Government to sell or transfer our public lands. Who are are they going to sell our public lands to? To Utah as a State, or to only private developers for energy, or to China or others that hold the US National Debt?

Under my bill, 2012 HB 209, http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0209.pdf

with the proposed amendment:
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/pamend/hb0209.hca.01.pdf

the sovereign land definition under Utah Constitution and Utah law, would provide the land rights and use protection for not only the ranchers and ATV users, but also the hikers and the tourists. For all of Utah.

The framework for sovereign land management is found in the Utah Constitution (Article XX), state statute (primarily Chapter 65A-10), and administrative rule (R652). Article XX of the Utah Constitution accepts sovereign lands to be held in trust for the people and managed for the purposes for which the lands were acquired. Section 65A-2-1 of the Utah Code provides: “The division [of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, FFSL] shall administer state lands under comprehensive land management programs using multiple-use, sustained-yield principles.”

Utah Lake example:
Although sovereign land planning and management responsibilities lie with FFSL, other divisions of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) also have management responsibilities for resources on and around Utah Lake. The Division of Wildlife Resources, for example, has plenary authority for managing wildlife in, on and around the lake. The Division of Parks and Recreation manages Utah Lake State Park and coordinates search and rescue and boating enforcement on the lake. The Division of Water Rights regulates the diversion and use of lake and tributary waters. The Division of Water Resources conducts studies, investigations and plans for water use. DNR divisions also regulate mineral extraction activities, conduct hydrologic research and identify and map geologic hazards around the lake.

The rights of Utah were protected under a US Supreme Court decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court, decided in 1987
Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193 (1987)

After the Federal Government, in 1976, issued oil and gas leases for lands underlying Utah Lake, a navigable body of water located in Utah, the State brought suit in Federal District Court for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that it, rather than the United States, had title to the lakebed under the equal footing doctrine. Under that doctrine, the United States holds the lands under navigable waters in the Territories in trust for the future States, and, absent a prior conveyance by the Federal Government to third parties, a State acquires title to such lands upon entering the Union on an "equal footing" with the original 13 States. The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 provided that Utah was to be so admitted.

Held: Title to Utah Lake's bed passed to Utah under the equal footing doctrine upon Utah's admission to the Union.

See:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/193/case.html

The Utah Lands Protection Act (2012) – Rep. Fred Cox

Redefines "Sovereign lands" to include those lands, owned by the state by virtue of its sovereignty; including land previously claimed by the federal government that is:

claimed by the state through judgment, decree, purchase, compact, exchange, gift, other conveyance, the United States Constitution, or other law; reclaimed by the state through judgment, decree, purchase, compact, exchange, gift, other conveyance, the United States Constitution, or other law; or obtained by the state through judgment, decree, purchase, compact, exchange, gift, other conveyance, the United States Constitution, or other law.

"Sovereign lands" does not include property owned by the federal government in accordance with the United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, or trust lands,

If any United States public lands owned or claimed by the federal government on January 1, 2012 become sovereign lands, then the State School Fund, pursuant to Utah Constitution shall receive 5% of the net proceeds from the sale of those lands.

http://trustlands.utah.gov/home/index.html
http://trustlands.utah.gov/news/documents/TL2011AnnualReportWeb.pdf

If any of the following become sovereign lands, the division may not sell the sovereign lands or substantially change the use that relate to those sovereign lands from the use that were in effect for those sovereign lands on January 1, 2012:

(a) Arches National Park;
(b) Bryce Canyon National Park;
(c) Canyonlands National Park;
(d) Capitol Reef National Park; or
(e) Zion National Park.

Utah Land
The principle behind the bill is that under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment, the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah Legislature. Clearly the 2/3 of the land in Utah "claimed" by the Federal Government does not fit within this constitutional power.

My contention is that Congress, the President, the US Supreme Court do NOT have constitutional authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, and that the Utah Enabling Act, Sec 3, 4th paragraph and the Utah Constitution Article 3, section 2, be declared void ab initio, which means "to be treated as invalid from the outset," based on US Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17 and the 10th amendment. As a State, the land should be Utah's based on "equal footing" with the original 13 States.

Even if the Utah Enabling Act section be determined to be US Constitutional, the Federal Government promised in that agreement to sell the 2/3 of Utah, and not to keep it. They officially violated that agreement with FLIPMA in 1976, leaving Utah and not the Federal Government, jurisdiction and the owner of 2/3 of the land.

It is time the Federal Government recognize Utah is a State and not a Territory. I have been a resident of Utah for over 50 years. My father grew up in Hurricane Utah. My great great grandfather, Jehu Cox, settled the FT. Union area, donated the 10 acres for the fort, and his descendants have been working this land ever since. I care a great deal about this land.

For an article about the bill and protecting our land, see:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51121753-76/bill-cox-federal-lands.html.csp




http://youtu.be/v6vgbt66oi4

From SITLA

The Impact of Federal Land Policy on Utah’s Trust Lands
In much of Utah, trust lands are interspersed among federal public lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Because SITLA and its lessees rely on surrounding federal lands for access and because most mineral projects require a substantial land footprint to be
economic, the availability of federal public lands is critical to the economic use of school trust lands. Federal land-management policy – particularly with regard to wilderness and other conservation designations – directly affects Utah’s school trust. During FY 2011, SITLA staff spent hundreds of hours responding to various public land issues that affect the school trust.

Wilderness and Wild Lands
The issue of how much public land in Utah should be designated as wilderness has been contentious for decades. Under the federal Wilderness Act, wilderness is managed solely for primitive recreation, with motorized use, road access, and mineral development generally prohibited. Under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, BLM completed an inventory of BLM lands in Utah in 1991 and designated 3.2 million acres of BLM lands in Utah as wilderness study areas (WSAs).

WSAs are managed as wilderness pending either formal Congressional designation as wilderness or release from WSA status. Because of the lack of consensus in Congress, no sizeable designation or release of these lands has occurred since 1991.

This situation creates an unacceptable situation for Utah’s school trust lands. More than 100,000 acres of school trust lands are located inside WSAs. These lands have been largely inaccessible since 1991, and mineral leasing on the surrounding BLM lands has been terminated. Both of these actions have caused direct financial loss to the Trust.

Environmental groups have proposed enormous designations of wilderness more than the 3.2 million acres currently in WSAs. SITLA estimates that, if the most expansive of these proposals were enacted, more than one million acres of trust lands – between 1/4 and 1/3 of Utah’s entire trust portfolio – would be isolated. These expansive proposals, however, have failed to advance in Congress.

On December 22, 2010, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued a Secretarial Order creating a new class of protected BLM lands, so-called “wild lands.” These lands would be managed as de facto wilderness and would be withdrawn from mineral leasing in most instances. SITLA was extremely concerned with the “wild lands” Order.

The Secretary’s legal authority to create a whole new category of land management is doubtful; the criteria used to define “wild lands” were vague and subject to administrative whim. Most importantly, the Order threatened to administratively isolate hundreds of thousands of acres of additional trust lands from economic use.

In the intervening months, SITLA worked with the Utah congressional delegation and the Utah Attorney General’s office to challenge the “wild lands” policy legislatively and judicially. Litigation was filed by the State of Utah in April 2011 to have the Order set aside, and Congress subsequently defunded its implementation. Shortly after the close of the fiscal year, Secretary Salazar formally placed the Order in abeyance in favor of a more collaborative approach to the wilderness issue.

Why do we make immigration more complicated

If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you can't reward those that bypass the line. They need to be sent to the back of the line. That doesn't mean you should stop treating them like people.

Do you remember when you had to wait in line to buy tickets to a movie, and then wait in line before going in? If you came to the theater and the show was full, you could buy a ticket to a later show. That was before you could order them at home, and know then where your seat was and what time to come to the theater.

You can't let everyone show up for the same movie or there would be no place to sit, and you do need some reasonable security and rules.

Why do we make immigration more complicated?

We have a new law. Lets use it. The sponsoring principle of 2011 HB 469 provides a limiting factor of how fast immigrants can come, makes sure they do not place a larger burden than we can handle, and is more like co-signing a friends car loan.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51917989-82/469-immigration-116-federal.html.csp

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/06/hb-469-answer-to-immigration-puzzle.html

http://youtu.be/FTpYAW5JXhQ

National Popular Vote Compact

The US Constitution provided for a balance between small population states and large ones. This is one of the reasons for the Senate having 2 per state and the House being divided based on population.

The current US Presidential Electoral System keeps part of that concept so that voters in California, New York, and a few others do not decide who is elected, ignoring the rest of the country.

The original system was designed so that the electors nominated two candidates, one not from their state, and unless there was a candidate nominated by the majority of electors, the voting for president out of the top 5 nominees was done by the US House of Representatives, one vote per state. If two candidates received a majority of electors, the House would decide between just the two. Basically, the loser of the top two became the Vice President, who would take over if something happened to the President. The elector college system protected every state from being ignored.

By 1796 and 1800, partly due to political party influence, and because the public didn't want the US House to decide the election a movement to change happened and under the 12th amendment this was changed. One reason was to make sure the President and the Vice President could run together. The change made it so the electors would almost always reach a majority and therefore cast the final vote, and because of that, most states have now required that the elector vote based on which party they represent. Utah requires that an elector be replaced if they do not vote per party. See
http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter13/20A-13-S304.html?v=C20A-13-S304_1800010118000101

Under the current system, Utah having 6 votes instead of 4 gives us a slight edge over population. Utah has decided to have a winner take all system. If Utah were to split our vote, it would carry less weight in the national election.

If the National Popular Vote Compact proposed were to happen, (states making up over 270 electors were to join) the group would all have their electors match the popular vote of the entire country. So the group's electors would match the popular vote, meaning if Utah joined the compact, it could end up voting for Pres. Obama, even if most of the voters in Utah voted against him.

While the current system doesn't work as originally intended, there is still some balance favoring smaller states, just barely enough to encourage candidates to campaign throughout most of the country. If the Popular Vote Compact were to succeed, I believe that would be eliminated and I also believe the cities with the most population would be the locations where campaigning would occur, making the situation of ignoring parts of the country even worse.

I disagree with some of my colleagues. I believe this National Popular Vote Compact is a bad idea. A bill for Utah to join is expected to be voted on for the 2012 Legislative Session.

Some information:

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/12/national-popular-vote-compact-option-3.html

A copy of the bill that was submitted in the 2011 Session
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/sbillint/sb0252.pdf

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700184502/Pros-and-cons-of-electoral-college.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/52941274-64/popular-vote-electoral-idea.html.csp

http://www.1888932-2946.ws/ComTool6.0/ckfinder/userfiles/files/UtahRepublicanPartyResolutionOpposingNPV.pdf

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.freedomformula.us/endorsements/endorsements-frameset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Immigration

OK, I voted for 2011 HB 497. The feds are filing suit. Some comments:

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].

Repeat, there is nothing in the constitution that says the Feds can regulate immigration, and certainly nothing that says the states can't.

"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.

The Federal Government to needs to protect our borders, create rules for granting citizenship, but as the State of Utah, we can take care of immigration, thank you very much. (Pretty obvious the feds are not doing it).

HB 497 was changed enough before it passed to avoid the huge financial impact some of the cities were worried about. If we are going to have a line to come into this county, there needs some enforcement. Add HB 469 and it solves the legal immigration aspect and makes it self limiting. Can we get a better bill than HB 497, perhaps, but I haven't see a better bill than HB 469.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51917989-82/469-immigration-116-federal.html.csp

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/06/hb-469-answer-to-immigration-puzzle.html

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had different naturalization requirements which is why naturalization was included in the constitution.

"Under the Articles of Confederation, the question of citizenship and the naturalization of immigrants remained with the individual states. Pennsylvania allowed any foreigner of 'good character,' who took an oath of allegiance to the state, to acquire property and after one year's residency become a citizen entitled to 'all the rights of a natural born subject of this state.' New York followed Pennsylvania's model and added a requirement for foreigners to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince. Maryland's naturalization law required a declaration of 'belief in the christian religion' and an oath of allegiance. In South Carolina, full naturalization required at least two years of residency and a special act of the legislature."

Under the US Constitution the Supreme court ruled in 1837 that the states had immigration powers and it wasn't until about 1875-1880 that really started to change based on case law and not amending the constitution.

The articles of confederation were in place when the constitution was created and provide the argument and framework as to why naturalization was a power provided to the federal government under the US Constitution. It is my contention that while naturalization requirements were specified as a federal power, immigration requirements were purposely not a power granted to the federal government. It was a power the federal government later assumed, without constitutional modification after 100 years of the states having that power.

While you may argue that both the federal government and the states have power over immigration during those hundred years, I believe one can say that the states have power over immigration, based on the US constitution and not case law. That power was required under HB 469, but not under HB 497. There isn't even a constitutional note for HB 497 and I don't believe the federal government has constitutional arguments to win.

"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."

There is nothing in that oath that says I would swear to support, obey and defend Case Law, or any existing laws, especially those without US Constitutional standing. for example: FLIPMA.

For a copy of the 2011 HB 497 law, see:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillenr/hb0497.pdf

Some newer Salt Lake County 11x17 Redistricting maps

update: See http://elections.utah.gov/map/district-maps 

State House Districts
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/House_SaltLakeCounty.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/House_WestValleyCity.pdf

State Senate Districts

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Senate_SaltLakeCounty.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Senate_SaltLakeCountyWest.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Senate_District05.pdf

US Congress Districts
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Congress_CountySplits_Statewide.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Congress_SaltLakeCounty.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Congress_WestValleyCity.pdf

And, just for fun, a bipartisan map that didn't pass
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Cox_McAdams_05 Statewide.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Cox_McAdams_05 inset.pdf

Fred Cox Town Hall Meetings November 2011

Fred Cox, Utah House of Representatives, Town Hall
Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Candidate for the 4th Congressional District,
is co-sponsoring the event.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:00pm - 8:30pm
Hunter Library
4740 West 4100 South
West Valley City, Utah 84120

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=194176160656652
______________________________________________

Fred Cox, Utah House of Representatives Town Hall

Thursday, November 3, 2011 7:00pm - 8:30pm
Hunter Library
4740 West 4100 South
West Valley City, Utah 84120

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=167020786725488

______________________________________________

Fred Cox, Utah House of Representatives has also invited
Mia Love, Mayor of Saratoga Springs, who has formed a
congressional exploratory committee for the 4th Congressional District

Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:30pm - 8:30pm
Hunter Library
4740 West 4100 South
West Valley City, Utah 84120

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=131672043603571

______________________________________________

When faced with tough choices, it is easy to criticize, while those we delegate the responsibility to, make the best choice they can with the information they have.

If we don't tell them what we are thinking, how will they know?

Help Rep. Fred Cox make the best choices by sharing your ideas and insight.

Utah State House District 32 is being combined with District 29 for the 2012 election as a new District 30. It will be a House District that will be split 60% / 40% between the 2nd and 4th Congressional District and candidates from both congressional districts will be coming in future events.

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/fredcox4utah
http://www.facebook.com/fred.c.cox (personal profile)
http://www.facebook.com/fredcox4utah (public page)

Fred C Cox a member of the Utah House of Representatives

Conservative Republican, Utah Architect. Utah House of Representatives District 32
Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Independence, Education Excellence

Utah is the Best fiscally managed State. We need to continue to improve. The Economy will grow when Government will allow it. In many cases Government is holding business growth back.

Education can, will and must improve, but sending more money isn't always the answer.

As a taxpayer, I see the money spent on buildings and will continue to advocate an improved balance between cost savings and quality to the process.

I would hope we can reduce costs while still maintaining the quality and also increase the value and number or size of projects.

We need more consensus building and less compromise. If we focus on what we agree on, we can accomplish the most good. We may not agree with each other on all issues.

By being active in politics, we can influence what happens around us.

One of the areas I have been active in is media, including Social Media. In politics, I have been an online media rapid response moderator and/or responder, along with managing several Facebook groups and pages, and using Twitter to promote news to a wider audience.

Be involved. Be a voter. Public Officials can't know what you are thinking if you don't tell them.

The best way to contact me is to write via email.

Official Government and Constituent Email:
fredcox@utah.gov

Campaign Related Email:
fred@fredcox4utah.com

Print Media articles about Representative Fred Cox

Print Media:

Combining House Districts 29 and 32 for 2012 elections:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52701539-90/district-fisher-democrats-republicans.html.csp

Redistricting:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52746805-90/democrats-safe-democratic-district.html.csp

I still say the hat and 3 stripes map would have left the 2nd district a coin toss as far as the map went. It is up to the voters to decide.

It was not designed to protect Rep. Matheson's seat. It isn't his "seat" anyway.

It was designed to divide the state in 4 down to the last person keeping as many cities and counties together as possible.

It didn't have the votes. Even the bipartisan version, which was the only bipartisan sponsored Utah Congressional map. Any map had to pass both houses and only one map pulled that off after weeks, if not months.

The map that did pass both houses with a 2/3 vote each, other that a little balancing in Kaysville, Kearns and Millcreek, the other cities that were split are along main roads, and almost always major roads like I-15.

I like this complement from:
David Edward Garber Thank you, Representative Cox, for your diligent efforts on this task, not only in creating and promoting your own good proposal, but in improving everyone else's, as well. Facebook October 18 at 10:38am


Selected and appointed to fill the term of Ron Bigelow:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51001951-76/cox-bigelow-delegates-district.html.csp
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13913793

Protecting Utah Lands:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51121753-76/bill-cox-federal-lands.html.csp

The state answer to immigration:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51917989-82/469-immigration-116-federal.html.csp

Biographical Information

PROFESSIONAL & COMMUNITY SERVICE
• Utah State House of Representatives, District 32, January 2011 to present.
• Utah Republican State Central Committee 2011.
• 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
• AIA Utah, Government Affairs Committee, January 2008 to 2010.
Assisting with tracking, suggesting, and coordination of bills and regulations affecting the practice of architecture.

• 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

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

New 2012 Utah Redistricting Maps PDF

update: See http://elections.utah.gov/map/district-maps 

This link has about a 3MB size 8-1/2 x 11 (5) page version of the map from Legislative Research.

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Passed%20Congress.pdf

For the other maps in this format:

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/2012Senate.pdf

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/2012StateHouse.pdf

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/StateSchooBd.pdf

For maps in other formats see:

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-utah-2012-redistricting-maps.html

The new Utah 2012 Redistricting Maps

Update: All maps are at the Lt. Governor's Website at:
http://elections.utah.gov/map/district-maps


http://www.redistrictutah.com/

6 Utah Congressional Map Comparison

I am hoping this would be helpful comparing 6 maps being discussed. I would hope it can be passed out in the public caucus meeting. The data comes from the public redistricting software on the public side. It is population numbers.

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/SB3002-6%20options.pdf

The chart is designed for 11x17 black and white.

The Garber/King map numbers are confusing because they are calling the east part of Salt Lake County district 3, the south part of the state including Alpine and much of Utah county 4, and the west part of Salt Lake Valley district 2. That is also for the 12th Substitute map online. I have not been able to confirm that it has been "corrected" as not all the bill information for Substitute 12 is online.

The population data is generated by the public software and I have compiled the 6 maps into one file. The totals are just text.

For those complaining about not having enough people in the 2nd congressional district from Davis County (to give them a voice), this gives a comparison, again taking to account 2 and 4 are swapped for the Garber King map. The spreadsheet shows the files actual numbering. It would be easier to compare if the district numbers for Garber King map were changed.

Davis County 2nd district
SB 3002 57,432
Sumsion 15 57,432
Sumsion 16 57,432
McAdamsCox 69,623
FroererAdams 109,686

GarberKing None if you compare apples to apples.
21,108 goes to the west part of Salt Lake Valley district.

The maps are at:
http://www.redistrictutah.com/category/maps/us-congress

For a list of Congressional maps I have been involved in see:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/10/utah-redistricting-congress.html

Utah Redistricting - Congress

update: See http://elections.utah.gov/map/district-maps

I have been asked what congressional map proposals do I have out there and why?

I had one of the 1st maps submitted to the redistricting committee with the new software, and in fact it was a map I started last November and December in 2010. It was presented in a public hearing in June and selected as one of the top 6 maps by the committee in September.

The stated motive for drawing the "Hat and 3 Stripes" map was to have equal US Census population and keep as many counties and cities together as possible. (Not splitting them).

The map was NOT designed to balance republican or democrat ratios. The redistricting map software doesn't provide that information, nor was that my goal. I didn't want a map to decide who won the elections. That should be up to the voters.

Versions of that map is on the Redistricting website, include:

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/u-s-congressional-6-finalists/congress-rep-cox-%E2%80%9Cplan-e%E2%80%9D-hat-and-3-stripes

On Tuesday, October 4th, when it became obvious that we didn't have agreement on a map, I "pulled a bill file" for this map which is:

http://le.utah.gov/~2011S3/bills/sbillint/sb3002s06.pdf
with the map at:
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s06

I have two public variations of this "hat and 3 stripes" map at:

One that splits Utah County as all the maps that didn't had disappeared off the radar
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-repcox-hat-and-3-stripes-modified

One that puts more of Southern Utah together.
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-cox-congressional-map-z

The end of September, when the redistricting committee picked a map, I created this minor modification after working with some from Utah County.

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-cox-version-of-sumsion_06-modified-a

After the last redistricting meeting where it appeared that the map the senate passed may be the only option the senate would agree to, which is based on the Sumsion 6 modified A

I pulled this map as a bill file:

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/sb3002s11

The bill is at:

http://le.utah.gov/~2011S3/bills/sbillint/sb3002s11.pdf


Speaker Lockhart has proposed a modification of the Sumsion 6 modified A. This has some of the same modifications I made of the senate passed map for her proposed map.

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-cox-lockhart-5-modified

I recently found this map submitted by the public that I was impressed with. It only divided one county of the state.

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-plaizier-fair-4-utah

My modifications of it to reduce the number of cities split:
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-cox-fair-4-utah-leonard-s-plazier-rep-cox-modified

At this time, the two most likely maps, If I do nothing are:
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/us-congress/sumsion_15
and
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-rep-sumsion-sumsion_16


I am currently working on a map with Sen. Ben McAdams.

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-senator-mcadams-and-rep-cox-modification-of-hat-and-3-stripes

I hope to have one that is the best ready for release by Oct. 14th and available for public hearing on Oct. 17th if the map is very different from one that has had a public hearing.

For some real facts on Utah's Redistricting from our Lt. Governor
http://utahpulse.com/bookmark/16045628-Redistricting-A-Few-Facts-A-Few-Opinions-

Redistricting has Been Kind to Democrats...So Far

Redistricting has Been Kind to Democrats...So Far

Copy of now archived article from 9/16/11 at:
http://www.utahpolicy.com/featured_article/redistricting-has-been-kind-democratsso-far

By Bob Bernick, UtahPolicy.com Contributing Editor

If you had shown me last spring the redistricting maps of the Utah House and Senate unanimously adopted this week by the Legislature’s Redistricting Committee, I would have been more than a little surprised.

Why?

Because the majority Republicans did not treat the minority Democrats too badly.

In fact, depending on possible election outcomes in 2012 (assuming these maps are ultimately approved by the Legislature in an early October special session), Democrats could come out OK in the redistricting process.

And that is exactly why I’m thinking these maps won’t be the final boundaries for the 75-member House and 29-member Senate for the next 10 years.

The Senate map has a better chance of passage than does the House map, I admit.

That’s because the Senate redistricting combines no GOP incumbent senators.

Yes, it’s ugly boundaries for Tooele County.

But instead of the having the county split into four Senate districts, as is now the case, it would be split into two.

Still, it’s unlikely a Tooele candidate could win a Senate seat – the county has about one-third of the population base for both of the proposed districts, thus making it unlikely a county politician could win or hold one of the new seats.

And, yes, the map is draw to protect Senate Majority Assistant Whip Pete Knudson, R-Brigham City. But the map is also drawn to protect other GOP incumbents, as well.

Two Democrats are drawn into the same district – Senate Minority Leader Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake, and former minority leader Pat Jones, D-Holladay.

But, to be fair, the Salt Lake City/east side Salt Lake County Senate seats held by Democrats didn’t grow in population over the last 10 years as fast as other parts of the county.

So it is only right that two Democrats be put together.

And Romero is running for Salt Lake County mayor next year, so Democrats won’t see a battle of two incumbents.

The House is a very different matter.

Republicans on the Redistricting Committee – which includes Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo – approved a plan that put 10 incumbents into five combined districts.

Three Democrats and seven Republicans would face an incumbent if they run in 2012 and the map stands.

Two Democrats are combined: House Minority Leader David Litvack and newcomer Brian Doughty, both D-Salt Lake.

Rep. Janice Fisher, a Democrat, and Rep. Fred Cox, a Republican, both from West Valley City, are combined.

And in the most controversial suggestion, six GOP incumbents are combined: Rep. Brad Galvez, R-West Haven, and Rep. Jeremy Peterson, R-Ogden; Reps. Todd Kiser and LaVar Christensen, both R-Sandy; and Reps. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, and Chris Herrod, R-Provo.

Now, there are 58 House Republicans. It’s tough to draw a map with such a super-majority that wouldn’t combine at least a few GOP incumbents.

It’s especially difficult if you compartmentalize various geographic areas of the state and say House districts won’t be allowed to significantly encroach into surrounding areas.

For example, since the numbers so perfectly match up, Salt Lake County was basically kept whole, as was Utah County. Northern Utah fit well together, so did Washington and Iron counties.

But politically speaking, Utah County is really a tough sell as drawn today.

First off, the county is all Republican – no Democratic House members at all. So you can’t combine two Democrats in Utah County.

Secondly, while Lockhart may have voted for the map in committee, her caucus stand may be different. How does she tell her Utah County colleagues – most if not all of whom supported her in the speaker’s race where she won by one vote – that two arch-conservatives must be combined when, because of growth in parts of the county, there will be three open House seats created?

Why can’t the Utah County map be drawn that would give all incumbents their own districts and have only two open new seats?

Trust me, Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork, the House chair of the committee, has tried time and again to draw a Utah County map that makes some sense and doesn’t combine any incumbents.

Sumsion said that in the map approved last week “one of my best friends” in the House is combined with “another friend” – and Sumsion is not happy about it at all.

But that’s just the way the numbers and population shifts make sense, he said.

Members of the 58-strong House GOP caucus may define “makes sense” very differently.

Still, when there is political blood in the water, it can become every man for himself.

And to draw lines that protect Sandstrom and Herrod could mean that other incumbents end up in a district with mostly new constituents – and the loss of the geographic power base that put them in office.

What good does it do Utah County incumbent House members to save Sandstrom and/or Herrod if they, in turn, are challenged by a LDS bishop, city mayor or councilman or business leader from their new area who can knock them out in the GOP county convention or primary?

Wheels within wheels, hard choices all around.

You can see the new Senate and House redistricting maps at: www.redistrictutah.com.

Take a look. You may not know where your current incumbent lives (hey, you may not know who your current incumbent is).

But take a bird’s eye view. Do the new maps make sense to you?

If so – and they make sense to me – you should let your representative and senator know that you like what your see (or don’t).

Personally, I think the majority Republicans have done pretty well by the minority Democrats – given the population shifts and reality of the numbers.

Now we’ll see if the House and Senate GOP caucuses will go along with the maps proposed by the Redistricting Committee (this comment assumes that significant boundary changes aren’t made before the caucuses get a shot at them).

Remember, GOP House and Senate leaders want the redistricting maps to receive overwhelming support in the Legislature come October.

And if they have to draw more lines – and hurt some more Democrats -- to get that, well, don’t be surprised by that outcome, either.

Utah Redistricting 6 Finalists for the congressional districts "base map"

There are 6 maps to make comments on on the website. The committee will vote on one Tuesday for their "base map". I can't tell you which map to vote for, as I have one in the 6, and obviously have an opinion. Let yours be known online under each map. I am not on the committee so I will not be voting yet.

http://www.redistrictutah.com/category/maps/us-congress/u-s-congressional-6-finalists

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52626839-90/committee-congressional-county-lake.html.csp

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705391310/Lawmakers-narrow-list-of-potential-congressional-maps-to-six.html

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-25-6355-pizza-party-at-the-legislatures-redistricting-committee.html

http://www.heraldextra.com/legislature/article_32cfa276-a69a-5a64-aae7-05ef600d680c.html

Renewable Energy in Utah

http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/statistics/renewables6.0/pdf/T6.8.pdf

2012 Utah State House Districts Salt Lake County Area

"Somewhat similarly, Cox, who is not on the committee but attended its meeting, said he was not upset at being drawn into the same district as incumbent Fisher. He said he would rather be put into a district that makes sense geographically than be gerrymandered into a weirdly shaped area that might give him a better chance at re-election."

The article can be found at:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52568245-90/map-county-lake-salt.html.csp

See also:
http://utahpolicy.com/featured_article/redistricting-proposed-house-map-combines-10-incumbents

A copy of the Salt Lake County Base Map for 2012 Utah State House Districts voted on 12 Sep 2011 by the Redistricting Committee. I would be in District 29 on this map. (The numbering may or may not be updated).
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/slco12Sep11houseMap.pdf

See also:
http://www.redistrictutah.com/

A copy of the Base Map for 2012 Utah State Senate Districts voted on 12 Sep 2011 by the Redistricting Committee.
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/senate-redistricting-committee-adopted-base-map-91211

Boatlifters: The unknown story of 9/11

Much has been written and said about September 11, 2001, on the occasion of its 10th anniversary, but one story much less known is the one about the band of boats that came together to rescue nearly 500,000 New Yorkers from the World Trade Center site on the day the towers collapsed.

http://blogs.reuters.com/katharine-herrup/2011/09/09/boatlifters-the-unknown-story-of-911/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg&feature=share



HD version

The Utah Land Protection Act - 2012

The Utah Lands Protection Act (2012) – Rep. Fred Cox

Redefines "Sovereign lands" to include those lands:

owned by the state by virtue of its sovereignty; including land previously claimed by the federal government that is:

claimed by the state through judgment, decree, purchase, compact, exchange, gift, other conveyance, the United States Constitution, or other law;

reclaimed by the state through judgment, decree, purchase, compact, exchange, gift, other conveyance, the United States Constitution, or other law; or

obtained by the state through judgment, decree, purchase, compact, exchange, gift, other conveyance, the United States Constitution, or other law.

"Sovereign lands" does not include property owned by the federal government in accordance with the United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, or trust lands,

If any United States public lands owned or claimed by the federal government on January 1, 2012 become sovereign lands, then the State School Fund, pursuant to Utah Constitution shall receive 5% of the net proceeds from the sale of those lands.

If any of the following become sovereign lands, the division may not sell the sovereign lands or substantially change the management policies that relate to those sovereign lands from the management policies that were in effect for those sovereign lands on January 1, 2012:

(a) Arches National Park;

(b) Bryce Canyon National Park;

(c) Canyonlands National Park;

(d) Capitol Reef National Park; or

(e) Zion National Park.

Utah Land
The principle behind the bill is that under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment, the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah Legislature. Clearly the 2/3 of the land in Utah "claimed" by the Federal Government does not fit within this constitutional power.

My contention is that Congress, the President, the US Supreme Court do NOT have constitutional authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, and that the Utah Enabling Act, Sec 3, 4th paragraph and the Utah Constitution Article 3, section 2, be declared void ab initio, which means "to be treated as invalid from the outset," based on US Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17 and the 10th amendment. As a State, the land should be Utah's based on "equal footing" with the original 13 States.

Even if that Utah Enabling Act section be determined to be US Constitutional, the Federal Government promised in that agreement to sell the 2/3 of Utah, and not to keep it. They officially violated that agreement with FLIPMA in 1976, leaving Utah and not the Federal Government, jurisdiction and the owner of 2/3 of the land.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court, decided in 1987
Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193 (1987)

After the Federal Government, in 1976, issued oil and gas leases for lands underlying Utah Lake, a navigable body of water located in Utah, the State brought suit in Federal District Court for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that it, rather than the United States, had title to the lakebed under the equal footing doctrine. Under that doctrine, the United States holds the lands under navigable waters in the Territories in trust for the future States, and, absent a prior conveyance by the Federal Government to third parties, a State acquires title to such lands upon entering the Union on an "equal footing" with the original 13 States. The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 provided that Utah was to be so admitted.

Held: Title to Utah Lake's bed passed to Utah under the equal footing doctrine upon Utah's admission to the Union.

See:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/193/case.html

It is time the Federal Government recognize Utah is a State and not a Territory.

For a draft copy of my bill see:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/2012FL0068.pdf

For an article about the bill and protecting our land, see:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51121753-76/bill-cox-federal-lands.html.csp

Additional information:
The framework for sovereign land management is found in the Utah Constitution (Article XX), state statute (primarily Chapter 65A-10), and administrative rule (R652). Article XX of the Utah Constitution accepts sovereign lands to be held in trust for the people and managed for the purposes for which the lands were acquired. Section 65A-2-1 of the Utah Code provides: “The division [of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, FFSL] shall administer state lands under comprehensive land management programs using multiple-use, sustained-yield principles.”

Utah Lake example:
Although sovereign land planning and management responsibilities lie with FFSL, other divisions of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) also have management responsibilities for resources on and around Utah Lake. The Division of Wildlife Resources, for example, has plenary authority for managing wildlife in, on and around the lake. The Division of Parks and Recreation manages Utah Lake State Park and coordinates search and rescue and boating enforcement on the lake. The Division of Water Rights regulates the diversion and use of lake and tributary waters. The Division of Water Resources conducts studies, investigations and plans for water use. DNR divisions also regulate mineral extraction activities, conduct hydrologic research and identify and map geologic hazards around the lake.

Endorsement of Cherilyn Eagar for Congress

I have been associated with Cherilyn Eagar for years. I was active in helping her team when she ran for US Senate. I have watched her tireless effort in promoting conservative values, that didn’t diminish when that race was over. Her extensive knowledge of the US Constitution along with State, National and International policies and situations is simply amazing.

As a newly appointed member of the Utah House of Representatives, I have found that bills being drafted or debated often contain conflicting ideas and principles and that it is sometimes very difficult to determine which way to vote. While I have watched others be overly critical of that process, Cherilyn has been only supportive, even when she didn’t agree. I have watched her be firm in principles and values while continuing always to learn. It is with that background that I endorse Cherilyn Eagar for the US House of Representatives as someone I trust and that will represent Utah well.

For more information about Cherilyn Eagar

Website:
http://eagar2012.com/

Twitter
Facebook page
Facebook group
Facebook profile

West Valley City raises property taxes - option 3

A big thank you to the City Council for cutting the West Valley City budget shortfall so property taxes were not raised 2 or 3 times as much.

Based on current commitments, I believe there was only 3 choices for the proposed budget year.

For the 2012 budget, raise taxes, cut programs, or use one time money to cover the shortfall.

For the following year, there could be other savings, but you need to get a lot deeper than the 20 page version of the budget most people didn't even see to find most of them.

Someone this last week, either the council or the city manager, decided option 3 wasn't going to be used and pulled $3.2 million one time revenue out of the general budget and moved it to another account. That meant they had to find over $3 million in general budget savings in a week, which was done.

That accomplished, if they had simply put the $3.2 million back in, they could have deleted the property tax increase. It wouldn't have pretty, but could make a big difference in a lot of WVC businesses that are struggling to stay open, or waiters or waitresses that are now looking for another job because they can't afford to work for a WVC restaurant clinging to stay open.

Again, you hit businesses and people with any tax increase when there is a depression and you increase the number of people you see living out of their car and the number of businesses boarded up. Again, I don't like one time money bridging on going operation budget gaps, but it would have been better than what they did.

When faced with tough choices, it is easy for those outside to criticize, while those we delegate the responsibility to make the best choice they can with the information they have. If we don't tell them what we are thinking, how will they know?

I applaud those on the council that had enough backbone to do what they thought was the best choice when they knew it wasn't going to be popular.

I do not, however, believe that raising taxes was the answer.

Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Independence, Education Excellence

Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Independence, Education Excellence

Conservative Republican, Utah Architect.

Utah is the Best fiscally managed State. We need to continue to improve. The Economy will grow when Government will allow it. In many cases Government is holding business growth back. Education can, will and must improve, but sending more money isn't always the answer.

As a taxpayer, I see the money spent on Buildings and will continue to advocate an improved balance between cost savings and quality to the process. I would hope we can reduce costs while still maintaining the quality and also increase the value and number or size of projects.

We need more consensus building and less compromise. If we focus on what we agree on, we can accomplish the most good. We may not agree with each other on all issues.

By being active in politics, we can influence what happens around us. One of the areas I have been active in is media, including Social Media. In politics, I have been an online media rapid response moderator and/or responder, along with managing several Facebook groups and pages, and using Twitter to promote news to a wider audience, or reducing their impact.

Be involved. Be a voter. Public Officials can't know what you are thinking if you don't tell them.

The best way to contact me is to write via email.

Official Government and Constituent Email:
fredcox@utah.gov

Campaign Related Email:
fred@fredcox4utah.com

Why do people in Utah still buy and use the illegal fireworks?

The Utah Legislature voted for the new "cake" fireworks because they go up hot but come down cool.

They have a stable base so they don't fall over. They were backed by several fire marshals.

We now have at least two fires started by illegal fireworks. One in Ogden started a bush fire and one in South Jordan took out a garage and burned two people. The fire for Red Butte canyon was caused by a campfire.

So the question: Why do people in Utah still buy and use the illegal fireworks?

Part of an email I am getting re: Caylee's Law

This is part of an email I am getting re: Caylee's Law

"On July 5, 2011, at 1:15 pm CST, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first degree murder in the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. The only charges she now faces are four counts of falsifying police reports, each of which only carries a 1 year prison term. Since she has been in jail since August 2008, she will be out of jail ENTIRELY too soon.

"I'm writing to propose that a new law be put into effect making it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the death of their child, accidental or otherwise, within 1 hour of said death being discovered. This way there will be no more cases like Casey Anthony's in the courts, and no more innocent children will have to go without justice.

"Also, make it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours, so proper steps can be taken to find that child before it's too late.

"The case of Caylee Anthony was tragic, and there is no reason for another case like this one to hit the courts. Let's do what is necessary to prevent another case like this from happening."

_________________________

My answer and response to the emails includes the following:

I have not been following this case in the news, but based on what I have read, the jury found that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to convict the mom. I realize the mom was convicted in and by the media and most people following the news reports, but our system has people innocent until proven guilty in court.

I don't want everyone that the media thinks is guilty to be found guilty if there isn't enough evidence.

I believe the 1 day time frame in all cases may be too short of time for a law. I haven't researched to see what all the existing federal or state laws are yet.

Some are at:

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/MPCmissing.html

I did research one law. In Utah, "Child abuse -- Child abandonment" is a felony. While there isn't a 24 hr. notice requirement, If you abandon your child and they get hurt, you could be in trouble.

I have spoken to the House Chair of the Utah Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Interim Committee, of which I am committee member. If Utah has laws that need to be made better, I am open to that, but I do not want to jump on this "band wagon". I have spent 6 months trying to modify a current law that was one mentioned in the article below.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/07/08/dead-children-make-bad-laws

I have recently heard that one member of the Utah House of Representatives has pulled a bill file to look at Utah's laws in this area.

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/legislature/article_df3c4cd5-7c48-5d19-906d-3cf2b97b5183.html

[Update, see:

http://www.utahreps.net/uncategorized/rep-anderson-caylees-law-issues-already-addressed-in-utah-code ]

Thanks for writing and letting me know what you are thinking. It really helps to get others perspective.

Fred C. Cox

Utah House of Representatives, District 32

Mitt

Out of the 3 choices I was considering, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, I believe Mitt is the closest to being ready.

Granted, Mitt has made mistakes and changed his mind on issues, but I haven't found too many that haven't.

Why did Rep. Chaffetz endorse Mitt? Well he said why, and that answer is in several papers.

One likely reason is he was asked, as was I. You are left with the choice, yes, no, or not yet. I didn't answer yes just because his campaign called me several times, or Josh Romney calling me more than once, I said yes after meeting Mitt more than once and listening him to him on more than one occasion.

I said yes after asking a lot of people about Michele, including those working with her. I didn't have to ask people about Jon, as I have known the family since I was a teenager. Jon went to my high school and his wife moved into my class. I have watched him most of my life. He has strengths, but I am not in his fan club at this time. If it was his father running, he would have my vote.

So, Rep. Chaffetz picked Mitt, fine. So has Sen. Hatch and Sen Dan Liljenquist, as well, so are you not going to vote for any of the 3 because of that?

Grama articles

For an update on this subject see:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/04/grama.html

"I am confident all members will work diligently to craft recommendations which protect the public's right to know, protect an individual's legitimate right to privacy, and protect taxpayer dollars."
- Gov. Herbert.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51567840-78/request-records-grama-network.html.csp

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51499750-76/bill-dougall-grama-records.html.csp

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51715159-78/records-county-requests-christensen.html.csp

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51988376-78/amyspencer-constituent-constituents-correspondence.html.csp

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52057357-78/group-grama-records-law.html.csp

http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308787058Cost_Timeliness.pdf

http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308787007Simplication.pdf

http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308786890Emerging_Technology.pdf

http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308786801Law_wording.pdf

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/03/governor-hebert-wants-new-bill.html

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/03/grama-commitee-meeting-today.html

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/03/regarding-repeal-of-former-hb-477.html

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/GRAMA-HB477%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf

HB 116 Repeal Resolutions

There are 4 bills that the Governor signed as the "Utah Solution". One that provides enforcement HB 497, one that provides for migrant workers HB 466, one that provides sponsoring HB 469, and one that provides a guest worker permit HB 116. Both HB 469 and HB 116 have a similar constitutional warning.

The Resolution that passed in Washington County dealt with HB 116 and the GOP Platform. The Resolution being considered on Saturday not only deals with that, but it deals with the constitutional nature of HB 116 as a state power.

HB 469 is a key to the question. Most, if not all, conservative legislative members voted for HB 469. Several of these members did not vote for HB 116. The reasons for the votes against HB 116 vary, as do the reasons for those that voted for HB 116.

HB 469 raises the same question, under the US Constitution is Immigration an enumerated power? Obviously not, if you read the current Deseret News Editorial.

If the Resolution on Saturday fails, it may be that a very few conservative activists care more about censuring the Utah Legislature over trying to find an answer to immigration. The Resolution on Saturday fatally questions the oath of office of its own legislative co-sponsors.

A Deseret News column misses this point.

Is HB 116 flawed? Yes. Is HB 116 unconstitutional? No. Is that understood by many conservatives? Yes.

I voted against HB 116, not because I want to ignore those here and just assume they will leave without another option.

I defended a US Congressional candidate and member for years that supported some form of a guest worker bill when he ran, as long as it didn't provide a pathway to US Citizenship prior to those legally waiting outside the US. I believe the sponsorship HB 469 is a better answer to the guest worker HB 116. Others may and do disagree.

I felt that HB 116 sends the wrong message. If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you can’t reward those who bypass the line. They need to be sent to the back of the line. That doesn’t mean you should stop treating them like people.

If the current wording of the HB 116 Repeal Resolution is not amended, I will be voting against the resolution, as I have done twice before.

I voted against HB 116, but I voted for HB 469. It is my opinion that in so doing, I can't then say HB 116 is unconstitutional. I will also not condemn my colleagues for voting for HB 116.

You need both enforcement and a way to solve the current situation that treats people as people. The answer to the current situation is complex and many differ in how to solve it.

Vote to replace HB 116 with something better or Vote to amend HB 116 with improvements, but don't condemn those in the Legislature that were faced with voting for it or not.

Fred C. Cox is a member of the Utah House of Representatives, serving from West Valley City.

HB 469: Answer to the immigration puzzle | The Salt Lake Tribune

My op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune can be found here:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51917989-82/469-immigration-116-federal.html.csp

The Op-ed is worth reading, however I do have the following additional clarifications:

To be considered for approval as a resident immigrant for purposes of the program, a foreign national shall: at the time of filing the application be living outside of the United States

HB 469 only allows the the person or family sponsoring, to sponsor 2 people or a family.

We need to remove and not create any rewards and incentives for immigrants to come here and be here illegally.

Immigrants that are here illegally should not have the ability to become United States Citizens prior to those outside the U.S. applying to come legally. Citizenship/Naturalization is clearly an enumerated federal power. Immigration is not.

One of the reasons people are here without permission is that our current legal immigration system takes too long and in many cases doesn't work.

One of the 4 bills passed is a migrant worker bill. This one is different. It gives citizens the ability to sponsor 2 people or a family to come to this county with permission.

People that can be sponsored do NOT include individuals who are in the United States, but who are not lawfully present in any of the states of the United States.

If they are here illegally, they have to go home to be sponsored.

It will take longer than a day, as the application must be made from outside the US.

1) To be considered for approval as a resident immigrant for purposes of the program, a foreign national shall:
(a) file an application with the department;
(b) at the time of filing the application be living outside of the United States;
(c) pass a health and background screening;
(d) provide evidence that the foreign national has not been convicted of, pled guilty to, pled no contest to, pled guilty in a similar manner to, or resolved by diversion or its equivalent to a felony or class A misdemeanor;
(e) file proof of sponsorship by a sponsor who meets the requirements of Section 63G-12-203; and
(f) pay a fee established by the department in accordance with Section 63J-1-504.
(2) A foreign national is ineligible for the program if the individual:
(a) is in the United States at the time of application for the program; or
(b) is a citizen of a country:
(i) designated by the United States State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism in accordance with section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act;
(ii) against which the United States has declared war; or
(iii) against which the United States has imposed sanctions as listed under a sanctions program of the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the United States Department of Treasury.

To see who voted for this bill, see:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0469.002h.txt

http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0469.001s.txt

Federal Land within a State - Read Again

As you may know, this year I sponsored a bill so that Utah could not to sell Bryce Canyon and the other 4 "National Parks", called the "Utah Lands Protection Act". Unfortunately, the bill came out very late in the session, still needed a few modifications, and was held in committee.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51121753-76/bill-cox-federal-lands.html.csp

http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillamd/hb0380.pdf

The principle behind the bill is that under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment, the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah Legislature. Clearly the 2/3 of the land in Utah "claimed" by the Federal Government does not fit within this constitutional power.

US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And"

My contention is that Congress, the President, the US Supreme Court do NOT have constitutional authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, and that the Utah Enabling Act, Sec 3, 4th paragraph and the Utah Constitution Article 3, section 2, be declared void ab initio, which means "to be treated as invalid from the outset," based on US Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17 and the 10th amendment.

Even if that Utah Enabling Act section be determined to be US Constitutional, the Federal Government promised in that agreement to sell the 2/3 of Utah, and not to keep it. They officially violated that agreement with FLIPMA in 1976, leaving Utah and not the Federal Government, the owner of 2/3 of the land.

My oath of office included "do solemnly swear that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State".

What do you do when the Constitution of Utah conflicts with the Constitution of the United States? I did not swear to defend this federal land policy which I believe violates the United States Constitution.

I would suggest that if the Federal Government decides to close the five "National Parks" in Utah, that Utah claim them under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and keep them open.

To fund keeping them open, for the short term, I believe there is money in the GOED or if not, the rainy day fund. For the long term, by owning 2/3 of Utah, there would be enough resources to not only fund our schools, roads and jails, but the parks. For any court battle, there is funding set aside under the Constitutional Defense Restricted Account.

Since the bill I sponsored this year didn't pass, we could try and sell Bryce Canyon, but I believe that would be a mistake. Allowing our Utah's "National Parks" to be kept closed by the Federal Government would also be a mistake.

UPDATE:
The Utah Land Protection Act (2012)

For a draft copy of my bill see:

http://www.fredcox4utah.com/2012FL0068.pdf