Do we want to take a step that we can see what will happen or do we step off a cliff and not know if there is something there? I would rather do something than nothing, unfortunately the Governor and Senate have not agreed in the past.
Healthy
Utah doesn't just cover the gap, as that ends at 100% of poverty level and it goes to
138%. We already have 140,000 Utahns being covered by the subsidy now, those between 100% and 400%. Not all below 100% are in the "gap". If the US Supreme Court rules against the subsidy for federal exchanges,
then what? We can't under the ACA
just try medicaid expansion for two years. Healthy Utah is a pilot
without a parachute. Do we really want to cover people and then, in 2
years say, sorry, we were just kidding? The House does have a plan that
would be sustainable, even though it isn't less money. Utah Cares isn't
just a name..
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Fred Cox for Utah Republican State Central Committee
Fred Cox for
Utah Republican State Central Committee
Fred C. Cox
is a current member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee representing
Salt Lake County and is a member of the Utah House
of Representatives.
Fred is an
active defender of the Neighborhood Caucus Election and Convention System, as
an activist, member of the State Central Committee, and as a member of the Utah
House of Representatives.
Fred worked
tirelessly helping the Political Issues Committee, Protect Our Neighborhood
Elections, directly challenge Count My Vote. He also created Fair Elections
Utah to provide a place to broadcast critical information through social media
during that fight. In addition to reducing the number of voters signing the petition
in targeted areas of the state, the group filled official complaints with the
Lt. Governor’s Election Office with documented examples of violations of Utah
Initiative laws. It was immediately after this that Count My Vote compromised
and agreed to stop gathering signatures. Fred spoke against the 2nd
Substitute 2014 SB 54 in committee less than one day after this “grand
compromise” was announced.
As a member
of the Republican State Central Committee, Fred was at the front standing up to
the demands of Count My Vote for over a year. He is also one of the strongest
supporters of creating ways to improve our current neighborhood caucus election
system to allow greater participation, including same day voting by
firefighters, police, health workers and families with sick children.
In 2015
Representative Fred Cox was the original sponsor of H.B. 281 Revisions to
Elections Law, to effectively delay the implementation of 2014 SB 54. The bill had
a committee hearing in the House with the same language being used in a Senate bill
which passed committee and was voted on in the Senate chamber. Rep. Fred Cox
also sponsored a substitute to attempt to block many of the critical fixes for
2014 SB 54 that appeared in 2015 SB 207, which he felt would weaken the party’s
fight to protect it’s constitutional rights.
What now? The Party is currently taking
a media beating over how to deal with this issue. The Republican State Central Committee
will meet in a month to decide what to do. It will be this Committee and then
the State Delegates in August that will decide, not the Chair or the Executive
Committee. We need members on the State Central Committee who will provide
positive solutions, understanding the party and the law.
Critical also will be the 2016 Utah U.S. Presidential nominee
for our party that will be decided at the March 2016 neighborhood caucus
elections. The details will be important as this new vote can help attract more
support to our party and system or the reverse.
Starting May 12 in Utah of this year, we will
be able to pre-register 16 year olds to vote who will then be fully registered
when they turn 18. The Republican Party must be out in front to help these new
voters understand why they want to be affiliated with our party.
Vote Fred Cox for Utah Republican State Central Committee, to represent
you, Salt
Lake
County,
to help strengthen the State Republican Party.
COMMUNITY
SERVICE
• Member of
the Utah House of Representatives, 2011 to 2012, 2015 to present
• Member of
the Utah Republican State Central Committee 2011 to present
• Utah Republican
State Delegate 2002 to 2003, 2005 to 2011, 2013, 2015 to present
• Salt Lake County Republican Bylaws Committee, 2013
to present
• Salt Lake County Republican Central Committee, 2010
to 2012, 2014 to present
• Salt Lake County Republican Precinct Chair, 2014 to
2015
• Salt Lake County Business Alliance Gov. Action Committee, Nov. 2010 to
present
• Charter
member of the Valley West Rotary Club
• Campaign
Volunteer and/or Consultant for local, state, federal and party candidates
• Church
Based community service
CONTACT
INFORMATION: fred@fredcox4utah.com, http://www.fredcox4utah.com
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/FredCox4UtahSCC.pdf
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Petition For Extraordinary Writ
PETITION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT PURSUANT TO UTAH
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 19, AND UTAH CODE 20A-7-307 (3) (a).
Notice is given that Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter,
Petitioner, petitions the Utah Supreme Court to direct Spencer J. Cox, Lt.
Governor, State of Utah, Respondent, to accept the Application for an
Initiative or Referendum by Stephanie Gricius and four other Sponsors, attached,
for the purpose of allowing them to attempt to obtain signatures for a
referendum, to submit to the voters of the 2015 Utah General Election a repeal
of 2015 2nd Sub. HB 454, now Enrolled, “Prison Development
Amendments”, as allowed by the Utah Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 1, (2) (i)
(B), and Utah Code, Title 20A, Section 7, Part 3. The bill failed to obtain a two-thirds vote
of both Houses.
The Sponsors attempted to submit their Application on
March 27, 2015, but was refused and denied that opportunity by the Utah Lt.
Governor’s Election Office, based on the deadline found in Utah Code, 20A-7-302
(1) “within five calendar days after the end of the legislative session at
which the law passed.”, which this year ended March 12, 2015. By the deadline
specified in Utah Code, March 17, 2015,
it was not known if the Governor would sign this bill, and according to the
Legislative Website, the Governor was sent the Enrolled version of the bill on that
day.
The Governor signed the bill on March 25, 2015 and finished signing or vetoing any
other session bills on April 1, 2015,
a deadline per Utah Constitution Art. VII,
Sec. 8. The effective date of the bill to become law is May 12, 2015, as the immediate effective date
found in the bill did not apply without the 2/3 vote of both houses.
This Court is the court specified by Utah Code 20A-7-307
(3) (a) for an extraordinary writ to compel the Lt. Governor to accept the
application for any referendum petition. Even though the Petitioner, a Utah
Voter, as required by Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a), is also a current member of the
Utah House of Representatives, the Petitioner is powerless to repeal or request
legislation soon enough to be of help to the Application Sponsors, in this case,
without a special session being called by the Governor, who signed the bill, or
this Court. The Court recently ruled in a similar case involving Draper
City where an extraordinary writ
was issued per Utah Code 20A-7-6 (4).
The Petitioner, contends that the deadline found in Utah
Code, 20A-7-302 (1) does not provide a legal voter the power vested by the Utah
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 1, (2) (i), as in most cases the voter will not
know if the bill will be signed by the Governor by that deadline. The
Petitioner requests the Court to decide this matter, and asks that the
deadlines be adjusted by the Court for this case, so the Sponsors can submit
their Application, and also have time to obtain signatures.
Fred C. Cox, a Utah
Voter, Petitioner
[UPDATE]
The court asked for more information on May 1, 2015.
This has my response and a motion.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER
DATED MAY 1, 2015
AND MOTION TO ORDER A DELAY TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2015 HB 454
PENDING THE DECISION OF THE COURT.
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, responds to the Court Order for supplemental pleadings to the following two questions by the Court:.
1. What form of the "copy of the law" must be attached to an application for a referendum petition under Utah Code 5 20A-7-302(2)(d); and, if the term "law" is construed to mean "a bill passed by the Legislature," how does an applicant comply with that requirement if a copy of the enrolled version of the bill is not available within the five-day limit specified by Section 20A-7-302(1)?
2. What standing, if any, do voters have to challenge the denial of referenda petitions or applications for referenda petitions?
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
Response to Court Question 1a: The Enrolled version of the bill. Under Utah Article VI Section 25 and Utah Code 36-12-12 the Legislature has the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel prepare the “final” version of the bill after it has passed both Houses. This enrolled version of the bill is what is presented to the Governor to sign. The Governor has the option to sign the bill, veto the bill, allow the bill to become law without his signature, or provide a line item veto of the bill. This year he did all of those.
Utah Code 36-12-12 tasks the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to prepare the enrolled version for hundreds of bills each year leaving enough time for the Governor to receive the enrolled bill and make his decision in 10 days or at least prior to the 20 day deadline after the session found in Utah Article VII Sec. 8. An Enrolled bill is not a law without this process. See again Utah Article VII Sec. 8. According to Legislative Research, some bills are in enrolled form within 5 days after the session but most are within 12 days. They are then sent to the House or Senate, to printing and then to the Governor.
Response to Court Question 1b. While an applicant can attempt to apply for a referendum using a different version than the enrolled version of the bill, only the enrolled version of the bill, that has become a law, prior to its effective date, meets all the requirements of 20A-7-302 and 303 and Article VI, Section 1, (2)(a)(i)(B). One of the tasks the Lt. Governor’s office is given is to evaluate the application, making sure the applicant has the proper forms, disclosures and the correct version of the law. See 20A-7-303 and 304.
Response to Court Question 2a. A Utah voter has Standing under US Constitution Amendment 1, Utah Article VI, Section 1, (1)(b) and more specifically in this case Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B). This Utah Constitutional Section protects the voters’ legislative power to create and veto laws, except as delegated to the House and Senate. Also providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of referenda petitions is Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a).
If the lieutenant governor refuses to accept and file any referendum petition, any voter may apply to the supreme court for an extraordinary writ to compel the lieutenant governor to do so within 10 days after the refusal.
Response to Court Question 2b. Providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions is again US Constitution Amendment 1, Utah Article VI, Section 1, (1)(b) and more specifically in this case Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B).
“require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.”
Also providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions is Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a). In this case, the application was not allowed by statute after 5 days from the session and therefore it was the policy for the Lt. Governor’s Election Office to instruct interested parties of that deadline, including the applicants and the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a Utah Voter, and also in this last session attempted to amend the bill, which failed, and voted against it twice. There is an additional reason however any Utah Voter has standing regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions. The applications are part of the process for referenda petitions and a Utah Voter has Standing per Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a). There is not a question that the Lt. Governor’s office was attempting to follow Utah Code. The question for the Court is if the Code follows the State Constitution.
MOTION
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, requests the Court Order before May 12, 2015, a delay to the effective date of 2015 HB 454 pending the decision of the Court, and depending on that decision, include the days that would have been allowed under statute for those applying for a referendum to gather signatures, and have those signatures verified.
If the Motion is granted, the Court Order to delay the effective date, is requested that the notice be sent to both the Respondent and to the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel arriving no later than May 11, 2015. This delay of the effective date will be required by Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B).
“require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.”
along with Utah Article VI Section 25 and Utah Code 36-12-12 . If the Court decides grant the Petition for Extraordinary Writ to allow the application for referendum for 2015 HB 454 to be submitted, the law must not take effect during the process of the referendum. Based also on the Order the Court has given the Respondent, they will have 15 days to respond to this Supplemental Pleadings and Motion. That response deadline is not before May 12, 2015.
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner May 5, 2015,
Delivered May 6, 2015
[UPDATE 2]
The Lt. Gov/AG submitted a response to the motion part of the previous filing on May 11, 2015.
The Motion back to the Court on that day was as follows.
MOTION TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR AN ORDER TO DELAY THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2015 HB 454 PENDING THE DECISION OF THE COURT.
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, responds to the Respondent with the following Motion:.
MOTION TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
1. The Court is already aware that the Petitioner and the Respondent differ on the Standing of the Petitioner in this case. That was one of the two main questions the Court asked. The Petitioner stands by the argument previously presented that as a voter, in this case, continues to argue he has standing.
2. The Court also asked if the current law was flawed based on the State Constitution. The Petitioner answered the questions. The Respondent, who has not responded directly yet to the first question, still has time to respond, but that will not be soon enough to protect the Petitioner’s rights under Article VI.
3. The Court and the Responder have copies of the Application for a Referendum that was attempted to be filed on March 27, 2015. Those sponsors were repeatedly told that they could not submit the application as was the Petitioner on that date, since the 5 days had passed since the session. Since March 27, 2015. there has been no reason stated by the Respondent as to why the Application was not able to be submitted, other that the statute timeline in question, which the Petitioner believes violates the Utah Constitution and has asked for protection of that right as a Utah Voter.
4. The Court has wide power under the Rules of a Petition of Extraordinary Writ to protect the rights of a Utah Voter.
5. The Rights of the Petitioner, a Utah Voter, according to Article VI include the right veto the law in question because it didn’t received the 2/3rds vote of both houses prior to the Effective Date, which is tomorrow. (Providing there are enough other Utah Voters). There is nothing in the Utah Constitution that says the Law Must have the Effective Date in 60 days, only that it can not be sooner unless the bill received the 2/3rds vote of both houses, and that it is the default of 60 days. The Petitioner belies the Court has the power to delay that date, providing the Respondent more time to answer the Court’s first question in more detail.
6. The Petitioner therefore asks for a MOTION TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
Fred C. Cox, Dated May 11, 2015
[Update 3]
[Update 4]
4 proposed applicant sponsors then filed a similar petition with the court. The court did not rule in their favor. A copy is found at
http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2015/20150581.html
It did include this:
"A statutory amendment to clarify the manner in which referenda sponsors may satisfy the statutory requirement to attach a copy of the “law” might be appropriate, but we leave that to the judgment
of the Legislature."
Note, a copy of the Petition For Extraordinary Writ was delivered to the Lt. Governor's Election office for Fred C. Cox by James Dabakis on April 3, 2015.
[UPDATE]
The court asked for more information on May 1, 2015.
This has my response and a motion.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER
DATED MAY 1, 2015
AND MOTION TO ORDER A DELAY TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2015 HB 454
PENDING THE DECISION OF THE COURT.
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, responds to the Court Order for supplemental pleadings to the following two questions by the Court:.
1. What form of the "copy of the law" must be attached to an application for a referendum petition under Utah Code 5 20A-7-302(2)(d); and, if the term "law" is construed to mean "a bill passed by the Legislature," how does an applicant comply with that requirement if a copy of the enrolled version of the bill is not available within the five-day limit specified by Section 20A-7-302(1)?
2. What standing, if any, do voters have to challenge the denial of referenda petitions or applications for referenda petitions?
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
Response to Court Question 1a: The Enrolled version of the bill. Under Utah Article VI Section 25 and Utah Code 36-12-12 the Legislature has the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel prepare the “final” version of the bill after it has passed both Houses. This enrolled version of the bill is what is presented to the Governor to sign. The Governor has the option to sign the bill, veto the bill, allow the bill to become law without his signature, or provide a line item veto of the bill. This year he did all of those.
Utah Code 36-12-12 tasks the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to prepare the enrolled version for hundreds of bills each year leaving enough time for the Governor to receive the enrolled bill and make his decision in 10 days or at least prior to the 20 day deadline after the session found in Utah Article VII Sec. 8. An Enrolled bill is not a law without this process. See again Utah Article VII Sec. 8. According to Legislative Research, some bills are in enrolled form within 5 days after the session but most are within 12 days. They are then sent to the House or Senate, to printing and then to the Governor.
Response to Court Question 1b. While an applicant can attempt to apply for a referendum using a different version than the enrolled version of the bill, only the enrolled version of the bill, that has become a law, prior to its effective date, meets all the requirements of 20A-7-302 and 303 and Article VI, Section 1, (2)(a)(i)(B). One of the tasks the Lt. Governor’s office is given is to evaluate the application, making sure the applicant has the proper forms, disclosures and the correct version of the law. See 20A-7-303 and 304.
Response to Court Question 2a. A Utah voter has Standing under US Constitution Amendment 1, Utah Article VI, Section 1, (1)(b) and more specifically in this case Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B). This Utah Constitutional Section protects the voters’ legislative power to create and veto laws, except as delegated to the House and Senate. Also providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of referenda petitions is Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a).
If the lieutenant governor refuses to accept and file any referendum petition, any voter may apply to the supreme court for an extraordinary writ to compel the lieutenant governor to do so within 10 days after the refusal.
Response to Court Question 2b. Providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions is again US Constitution Amendment 1, Utah Article VI, Section 1, (1)(b) and more specifically in this case Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B).
“require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.”
Also providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions is Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a). In this case, the application was not allowed by statute after 5 days from the session and therefore it was the policy for the Lt. Governor’s Election Office to instruct interested parties of that deadline, including the applicants and the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a Utah Voter, and also in this last session attempted to amend the bill, which failed, and voted against it twice. There is an additional reason however any Utah Voter has standing regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions. The applications are part of the process for referenda petitions and a Utah Voter has Standing per Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a). There is not a question that the Lt. Governor’s office was attempting to follow Utah Code. The question for the Court is if the Code follows the State Constitution.
MOTION
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, requests the Court Order before May 12, 2015, a delay to the effective date of 2015 HB 454 pending the decision of the Court, and depending on that decision, include the days that would have been allowed under statute for those applying for a referendum to gather signatures, and have those signatures verified.
If the Motion is granted, the Court Order to delay the effective date, is requested that the notice be sent to both the Respondent and to the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel arriving no later than May 11, 2015. This delay of the effective date will be required by Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B).
“require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.”
along with Utah Article VI Section 25 and Utah Code 36-12-12 . If the Court decides grant the Petition for Extraordinary Writ to allow the application for referendum for 2015 HB 454 to be submitted, the law must not take effect during the process of the referendum. Based also on the Order the Court has given the Respondent, they will have 15 days to respond to this Supplemental Pleadings and Motion. That response deadline is not before May 12, 2015.
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner May 5, 2015,
Delivered May 6, 2015
[UPDATE 2]
The Lt. Gov/AG submitted a response to the motion part of the previous filing on May 11, 2015.
The Motion back to the Court on that day was as follows.
MOTION TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR AN ORDER TO DELAY THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2015 HB 454 PENDING THE DECISION OF THE COURT.
Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, responds to the Respondent with the following Motion:.
MOTION TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
1. The Court is already aware that the Petitioner and the Respondent differ on the Standing of the Petitioner in this case. That was one of the two main questions the Court asked. The Petitioner stands by the argument previously presented that as a voter, in this case, continues to argue he has standing.
2. The Court also asked if the current law was flawed based on the State Constitution. The Petitioner answered the questions. The Respondent, who has not responded directly yet to the first question, still has time to respond, but that will not be soon enough to protect the Petitioner’s rights under Article VI.
3. The Court and the Responder have copies of the Application for a Referendum that was attempted to be filed on March 27, 2015. Those sponsors were repeatedly told that they could not submit the application as was the Petitioner on that date, since the 5 days had passed since the session. Since March 27, 2015. there has been no reason stated by the Respondent as to why the Application was not able to be submitted, other that the statute timeline in question, which the Petitioner believes violates the Utah Constitution and has asked for protection of that right as a Utah Voter.
4. The Court has wide power under the Rules of a Petition of Extraordinary Writ to protect the rights of a Utah Voter.
5. The Rights of the Petitioner, a Utah Voter, according to Article VI include the right veto the law in question because it didn’t received the 2/3rds vote of both houses prior to the Effective Date, which is tomorrow. (Providing there are enough other Utah Voters). There is nothing in the Utah Constitution that says the Law Must have the Effective Date in 60 days, only that it can not be sooner unless the bill received the 2/3rds vote of both houses, and that it is the default of 60 days. The Petitioner belies the Court has the power to delay that date, providing the Respondent more time to answer the Court’s first question in more detail.
6. The Petitioner therefore asks for a MOTION TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
Fred C. Cox, Dated May 11, 2015
[Update 3]
FRED C. COX, Petitioner,
v
SPENCER J. COX, in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah, Respondent.
Case No. 20150261-SC
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a petition for extraordinary relief. The petition pertains to a contemplated referendum for the repeal of HB 454, entitled "Prison Development Amendments," enacted by the Utah Legislature during the 2015 General Session, which ended on March 12,2015. The petition asserts that a group of sponsors prepared a referendum application and that they "attempted to submit their Application on March 27, 2015, but [were] refused and denied that opportunity by the Utah [Lieutenant] Governor's Election Office, based on the [five-day] deadline found in Utah Code, 20A-7-302." The Petitioner has not identified himself as one of the prospective sponsors, and the Court has determined he lacks standing to contest any action or inaction by the Lieutenant Governor with respect to the prospective sponsors' application. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
7-17-15
FOR THE COURT
Matthew B. Durrant
Chief Justice
[Update 4]
4 proposed applicant sponsors then filed a similar petition with the court. The court did not rule in their favor. A copy is found at
http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2015/20150581.html
It did include this:
"A statutory amendment to clarify the manner in which referenda sponsors may satisfy the statutory requirement to attach a copy of the “law” might be appropriate, but we leave that to the judgment
of the Legislature."
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
The US President can not cut a deal with Iran on his own
"He
shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" US Constitution Art 2, Sec. 2, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" US Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3
If it isn't a treaty, The US President doesn't have the power (it is Congress') and if it is a treaty, he has to get the advice and the consent of 2/3 of the senate. The President, including the Secretary of State, is outside his US Constitutional powers.
The Constitution is simple and clear. Do we have anyone in the US Senate, who would have standing, with the guts to take this to the SCOTUS?
"The Congress shall have power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" US Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3
If it isn't a treaty, The US President doesn't have the power (it is Congress') and if it is a treaty, he has to get the advice and the consent of 2/3 of the senate. The President, including the Secretary of State, is outside his US Constitutional powers.
The Constitution is simple and clear. Do we have anyone in the US Senate, who would have standing, with the guts to take this to the SCOTUS?
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Church Lobbyists
While I didn't follow former Representative Carl Wimmer around in 2011, and in fact voted differently than him on several bills, his blogged experiences differ widely to mine re: Church Lobbyists, etc. in 2011.
I posted this several years ago.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/03/clarification-regarding-contacting-lds.html
This year, Mr. Wimmer was not involved in the legislature, and his assumptions, as far as I am concerned with 2015 SB 296 and SB 297 are nothing more than that, assumptions, and are also rubbish as far as I am aware.
I have made Facebook comments last week re: this subject. My comments from this thread are below:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/210732079060530/permalink/611492808984453/
Fred C. Cox, March 22, 2015
In 3 general sessions and several special sessions I would say my experience would not match what Carl described. No one from the Church has told me how to vote. For starters I haven't talked to the two he mentioned. I was there in 2011. I loudly complained about a newsroom press release in April 2011 re immigration which was revised in June. Nothing during the session. This year, I started reading SB 100 again for the 3rd year. I have posted major amendments on my blog for over 2 years. I was surprised my complaints were fixed. That was prior to any announcement from the church in January.
I have contacted reps from the church to verify what I was hearing was crap, which it typically was. For example some claiming Healthy Utah was backed by them. I was referred to a pretty generic statement. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-encourages-principled-approach-health-care-coverage-needy-utahns
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality
"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."
The two he named are no longer lobbyists.
I copied it not because of some lobbyist, but because of some local member of the church giving a representative or senator grief for voting against SB 296.
I voted for SB 296 because of changes that were made to a bill I had been reading for years. The protection of rights on page 23 are huge. The idea that we need a law so people would respect others that believe differently is sad. There is a reason a few activists are concerned it might be replicated. They are so used to calling anyone that disagrees with their view a bigot that the idea we should love others that believe differently is scary to them.
If there was anyone that could have been targeted, would have it been the House Judiciary Committee? I am not aware of any report of anyone on that committee or another in the #utleg that complained about backroom arm twisting on SB 296 coming from the church.
And since I am on the house judiciary committee that vetted SB 296, I would likely have seen something.
Someone asked if there was a LDS caucus. Not that I have ever seen.
I was not following Carl around. I don't know what he saw and didn't. All anyone can report on is what they know. My experience doesn't match. I will not call him a liar. I do not agree with some of his conclusions. People have the right to disagree.
Try reading lines 687 to 691. And while you are there, continue to lines 706. http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/SB0296.html
Lines 182 and 183, along with 790 to 791.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. You conclusion based on what I did say wasn't even close. Assumptions made re: this year, are just that.
So why in 2011, when I voted against HB116 and also spoke against it did I get no contact during the session? Speculation is all that is found here.
The amount of crap being shoveled on this thread would make a lot of fertilizer.
I posted this several years ago.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/03/clarification-regarding-contacting-lds.html
This year, Mr. Wimmer was not involved in the legislature, and his assumptions, as far as I am concerned with 2015 SB 296 and SB 297 are nothing more than that, assumptions, and are also rubbish as far as I am aware.
I have made Facebook comments last week re: this subject. My comments from this thread are below:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/210732079060530/permalink/611492808984453/
Fred C. Cox, March 22, 2015
In 3 general sessions and several special sessions I would say my experience would not match what Carl described. No one from the Church has told me how to vote. For starters I haven't talked to the two he mentioned. I was there in 2011. I loudly complained about a newsroom press release in April 2011 re immigration which was revised in June. Nothing during the session. This year, I started reading SB 100 again for the 3rd year. I have posted major amendments on my blog for over 2 years. I was surprised my complaints were fixed. That was prior to any announcement from the church in January.
I have contacted reps from the church to verify what I was hearing was crap, which it typically was. For example some claiming Healthy Utah was backed by them. I was referred to a pretty generic statement. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-encourages-principled-approach-health-care-coverage-needy-utahns
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality
"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."
The two he named are no longer lobbyists.
I copied it not because of some lobbyist, but because of some local member of the church giving a representative or senator grief for voting against SB 296.
I voted for SB 296 because of changes that were made to a bill I had been reading for years. The protection of rights on page 23 are huge. The idea that we need a law so people would respect others that believe differently is sad. There is a reason a few activists are concerned it might be replicated. They are so used to calling anyone that disagrees with their view a bigot that the idea we should love others that believe differently is scary to them.
If there was anyone that could have been targeted, would have it been the House Judiciary Committee? I am not aware of any report of anyone on that committee or another in the #utleg that complained about backroom arm twisting on SB 296 coming from the church.
And since I am on the house judiciary committee that vetted SB 296, I would likely have seen something.
Someone asked if there was a LDS caucus. Not that I have ever seen.
I was not following Carl around. I don't know what he saw and didn't. All anyone can report on is what they know. My experience doesn't match. I will not call him a liar. I do not agree with some of his conclusions. People have the right to disagree.
Try reading lines 687 to 691. And while you are there, continue to lines 706. http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/SB0296.html
Lines 182 and 183, along with 790 to 791.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. You conclusion based on what I did say wasn't even close. Assumptions made re: this year, are just that.
So why in 2011, when I voted against HB116 and also spoke against it did I get no contact during the session? Speculation is all that is found here.
The amount of crap being shoveled on this thread would make a lot of fertilizer.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Rep Fred Cox voting ratings for 2015
Rep Fred Cox voting ratings for 2015 (being updated from 2012 when available)
Due to a House Judicial Committee scheduled and approved during floor time in Room 445 on the next to the last night of the session for 2nd Sub. SB 297, I missed 12 floor votes this year. I would not have otherwise.
My 2015 Votes for the General Session, including Committee Votes are at:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/2015GenSessionVotes.pdf
Floor votes our of 699 votes. 620 yea, 67 nay, 12 N/V (see above meeting)
Committee Votes out of 127 votes, 119 yea, 8 nay.
http://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/absent?year=2015
For the 3 sessions, I have 17 votes missed out of 2001 votes or 6th place for 2007 to 2015 % of least missed votes.
For the previous years, Least missed Floor Votes - 2012 Tied for 1st place in both the House and Senate, (for 2011 AND 2012 together, best for both houses)
Utah Taxpayers Association 100% (2015)
http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/?p=3043
Sutherland Institute: 100% (2015)
http://t.co/QRZiE1v9nL
http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org
Utah Charter Network: 94% (2015)
http://utcharternetwork.com/2015-legislative-session-report/
The American Conservative Union: 78% (2015)
http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-state-legislative-ratings/
Libertas Institute: 71% (2015) #17 (tied) of 75 House Members
http://libertasutah.org/resources/legislator-indexes/2015-index/
http://libertasutah.org/2015-bills/2015-legislative-report/
Grassroots 68% (2015)
http://www.utahgrassroots.org/annual/
Salt Lake Chamber 2015 Business Champion:
7-4-1 or 64% (2015)
http://slchambervote.com/priority-bills/
(4 Senate bills did not make it to the House)
CLI - Conservative - Liberal Index 75.5% (2015)
http://utleg.blogspot.com/2015/05/utah-house-scorecard-compiled-2015.html
http://utleg.blogspot.com/
Utah Education Association 42% (2015)
http://www.myuea.org/sites/utahedu/Uploads/files/Politics/2015-HouseVotingRecords.pdf
http://www.myuea.org/issues_action/uea_under_the_dome/legislative_voting_records.aspx
Utah Sierra Club 29% (2015)
https://utah.sierraclub.org/sites/utah.sierraclub.org/files/2015_Utah_House_Scorecard.pdf
https://utah.sierraclub.org/content/utah-legislative-scorecard
Number of No Votes on the Floor 67 votes or 9.6% #23 in the House (2015)
http://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/nay?year=2015
Party Line Voting 72.5% (2015)
http://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/party_support?year=2015
National Rifle Association - Political Victory Fund, (NRA) B+ and 2014 Endorsed Candidate
National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB/Utah SAFE Trust, 2014 Endorsed Candidate
Items to be updated:
Ideology scores for the Utah House of Representatives, 2012 (not yet for 2015)
http://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/ideology_house?year=2012
Salt Lake Tribune Red/Blue Rating 70% (2012)
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2012/05/1337821918legratings.pdf
Planned Parenthood Action Council of Utah 0% (2012)
http://ppacutah.org/legislative-scorecards/
Complete voting record for 2012:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/2012Cox.pdf
See also:
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/128581/fred-cox
My 2012 Ratings/Rankings are at:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/03/rep-fred-cox-voting-ratings-for-2012.html
2011 ratings or rankings are at:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/04/rep-fred-c-cox-voting-ratings-for-2011.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)