Another day, another shady Peay project

hossblur · Tuesday at 10:04 AM

Man vs. trees: How a rancher’s bulldozing project cost Utah taxpayers

The state footed a big bill for the owner of a hunting retreat to knock down trees on his and nearby properties. He made big environmental promises, but the science was lacking.

www.sltrib.com

Silentstalker · Tuesday at 10:28 AM

How can no one see this as bad but us?

notdonhunting · Tuesday at 10:32 AM

Silentstalker said:
How can no one see this as bad but us?

I can't see it and I am not giving the sltrib 8 bucks in order to see it.

Torq · Tuesday at 11:39 AM

Using heavy machinery to tear down trees leaves a lot of debris that the state needs to remove to prevent fires. Clear-cutting large areas of forest leads to erosion and polluted water supplies. And scientists worry about impacts on a variety of wildlife, not just game.

‘A little thing to help’

During the 2016 election season, Siaperas began forging political connections. He donated $2,700 to Donald Trump’s presidential bid and $4,800 to the Republican National Committee. His involvement in politics was encouraged by Don Peay, the head of Trump’s Utah campaign.

Peay, 63, a longtime GOP donor, has been a fixture on Utah’s Capitol Hill for nearly three decades, pushing for hunting-related causes. Lawmakers almost always back the bills he champions and block those he opposes. He was impressed by the roller-felling project and would eventually help form a nonprofit connected to Siaperas’ ranch.

They first met and became friends in 1994, when Peay hosted a rally to bolster the state’s mule deer populations. Shortly after, Peay founded Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group that raises money for state conservation projects by auctioning off Utah hunting permits at an annual expo.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) The annual Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City. Hunting licenses auctioned off at the event generate state income.
The expo has raised $80 million for the state since 2001. It attracts celebrities like Wayne LaPierre, the former chief executive of the National Rifle Association, and Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter who was a keynote speaker in 2016. Two years later, the then-president’s son visited Siaperas’ property, Range Valley Ranch, and shot a bear and a mountain lion nearby.

In 2019, Siaperas reached a new level of business for his tree-clearing enterprise. He spoke on Capitol Hill after a lobbyist connected him to state lawmakers, Peay said. Several legislators visited the ranch to see the results. That year, one of them requested $2 million on Siaperas’ behalf for “strategic and targeted forest fire treatment.”

The next year, Eric Hutchings, a Republican then serving in the state House of Representatives, said he requested $500,000 to support Siaperas’ business. In an interview, Hutchings recalled that lawmakers were worried about the shrinking Great Salt Lake and the threat of wildfire, given record damage a few years before. “As a Legislature, we were like, ‘What do we do?’” he said, adding, “I feel good about having done a little thing to help.”

Lawmakers earmarked another $900,000 in 2021, totaling $3.4 million in allocations over three years.

That process was unusual. Typically, state environmental experts design projects and find suitable contractors, often through open bidding. In this case, lawmakers handpicked someone with little relevant experience and set aside millions of dollars for his business.

Utah has one of the shortest legislative sessions in the nation: 45 days. That makes the appropriations process a rapid-fire event in which part-time lawmakers — many of them developers or real estate investors — and lobbyists have mere minutes to make their case to get budget items funded. There is limited input from scientists and experts, and no opportunity for public feedback.

A tailor-made contract

Initially, more than $1 million of those funds went to a roller-felling trial. Siaperas leveled 900 acres of woodland on two private ranches starting in 2020. One of them was Preston Nutter Ranch, a 42,000-acre property that abuts his land and is owned by family members behind Hunt Energy, who are worth nearly $25 billion.

With the pilot project complete, he participated in his first competitive bidding process in late 2022, for the clearing of 825 acres in the state reserve of Currant Creek.

Eight contractors submitted bids, ranging from $552,225 to $3.2 million. Siaperas’ estimate came in at $950,000 — almost exactly what state lawmakers had appropriated in 2021.

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Range Valley Ranch last month. When Siaperas bought the ranch, there were too many trees for his liking. “I wanted to see wildlife,” he said.
Days later, the state canceled the process, requiring contractors to take a virtual site visit. The proposal request was reissued in March 2023. This time, the scope of work called for a heavy-duty cable “pulled between two dozers” with a “rotating fulcrum roller to keep the cable elevated roughly 4 ft off the ground.”

Siaperas had patented his fulcrum roller in 2020. His company was the only contractor to submit a bid on the revised proposal.

“It seemed to me that they were custom-tailoring this job just to give it to exactly who they wanted,” said Chris Ivester, whose business was the low bidder in the initial process.

Jamie Barnes, the Utah state forester who oversaw project logistics, said the job could have gone to Siaperas through a sole-source award because he held the patent. State officials decided to have a competitive process anyway.

“I can completely see why people would think that was a rigged bid,” Barnes said. “It was not.” She added that the wide range of previous bids suggested that contractors did not understand the project’s scope.

As it turned out, Siaperas was able to roller-fell only about 10% of the Currant Creek project because the site was too steep for his equipment. The state paid him $240,000, about a quarter of the budget.

The $5 million lodge

His most recent strategy to obtain state funds for his roller-felling company was through his nonprofit, Atlantis USA Foundation, registered in 2022. The charity’s website says it intends to bring about positive change for veterans “through conservation of our lands and our values.” Last year, Peay, who was then serving on its board, appeared before a legislative appropriations subcommittee requesting funds. Lawmakers appropriated $1 million for Atlantis that year and $700,000 this year.

The state budget description for the funds makes no mention of veterans, however. Instead it directs the money to be spent on restoring aspens to decrease wildfires.

In a conflict-of-interest form filed with the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, which is overseeing the $1 million from last year, Siaperas disclosed his intention to hire 106 Reforestation to do the work.

Mike Siaperas completed construction of his Atlantis Lodge, a luxury hunting accommodation, last year.
Since 2020, Siaperas has made campaign contributions to Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox ($10,417); attorney general, Sean Reyes ($25,000); and former House speaker, Brad Wilson ($5,000). Cox and Reyes praised Siaperas in a 2023 video promoting his nonprofit that compared his efforts to Charles Lindbergh’s solo flight across the Atlantic.

Last September, Siaperas opened the Atlantis Lodge on his ranch. Ben Cervinski, a representative for Siaperas and the nonprofit, said the lodge has cost more than $5 million so far and remains in “phases of completion.” Veterans could stay at special rates, according to the ranch’s website. But for other guests, the lodge was listed at $2,500 a night per person. Smaller cabins, like the one where Donald Trump Jr. had stayed, and glamping tents went for less. Siaperas planned to turn the ranch into a boutique ski resort in winter and had enlisted high school students to dig private biking trails. The website removed the pricing information after Siaperas briefly spoke to a reporter for The Times and The Tribune.

To date, he has not used the money appropriated to Atlantis for any forestry work, officials said. The state of Utah, his primary client, has not identified any sites where roller felling could be deployed, though the governor’s office paid Atlantis $900,000 after the nonprofit submitted an invoice in June 2023.

In an email to the governor’s office last month, Cervinski asked to return that money.

Still, Siaperas and his ventures have collected at least $1.35 million from the state since 2020 alone.

Patience for such projects appears to be wearing thin among some lawmakers. Legislators are investigating the payments to Siaperas’ ventures, a state auditor confirmed. Rep. Casey Snider, a Republican from Cache County, commissioned an audit of the payments to Peay for wolf lobbying this year.

Though Siaperas once claimed in an interview that he could take any business, even one he knew nothing about, and “make it work,” 106 Reforestation is now rethinking its business strategy.

“If you want to lay blame, it’s at the federal government,” said Peay, because it manages most of the suitable land.

He recalled how he and Siaperas envisioned licensing veteran-owned roller-felling companies in every Western state.

“Every veteran would love to have 106 Reforestation on our federal lands,” Peay said, “running big equipment, being out in nature, getting away from all the chaos and making more water, less fires, better wildlife habitat.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service confirmed that the federal agency was not considering any roller-felling projects.

106 Reforestation is now trying to “engage” with private landholder clients instead, according to Cervinski. He said Siaperas welcomed the forthcoming audit of his forestry work.

“Audits can draw attention to many things beyond money received and spent,” Cervinski said. “They can help shed light on bureaucratic logjams that can hinder the work that the funds were intended for.”

Silentstalker · Tuesday at 11:42 AM

You don’t have to pay to see it. I don’t subscribe to the tribune and the article pulls right up.

notdonhunting · Tuesday at 11:54 AM

Silentstalker said:
You don’t have to pay to see it. I don’t subscribe to the tribune and the article pulls right up.

Screenshot_20240910_115348_Samsung Internet.jpg

hossblur · Tuesday at 12:14 PM

notdonhunting said:
I can't see it and I am not giving the sltrib 8 bucks in order to see it.

archives.today

Copy article title link into the search box.

Let's you bypass pretty much any paywall

hossblur · Tuesday at 12:19 PM

Screenshot_2024-09-10-12-15-20-51_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

Screenshot_2024-09-10-12-17-13-99_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

Screenshot_2024-09-10-12-17-59-95_c31b32364ce19ca8fcd150a417ecce58.jpg

smokepolejohnson · Tuesday at 7:39 PM

What legend old Don Peay is, still keeps his regime alive and well and fully funded with state tax $ for 30 years. Best of luck on the hunts this fall.

grizzly · Tuesday at 9:03 PM

Elected officials keep giving taxpayer dollars to certain people and groups because there are no checks and balances in a single-party government.

It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...

But, rest assured, not a single incumbent will lose their seat over it.

Same thing with millions in tree projects, lake projects, and BGF funds. Most people don't know about it, and those who do can't stop it.

Same thing with our AG office. Is this three straight leaving office under suspicious circumstances. Yet, the replacement will be elected in November and we'll start over.

In a single-party government, the absolute power corrupts absolutely

Screenshot_20240910_210101_Samsung Internet.jpg

elkassassin · Tuesday at 9:10 PM

grizzly said:
Elected officials keep giving taxpayer dollars to certain people and groups because there are no checks and balances in a single-party government.

It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...

But, rest assured, not a single incumbent will lose their seat over it.

Same thing with millions in tree projects, lake projects, and BGF funds. Most people don't know about it, and those who do can't stop it.

Same thing with our AG office. Is this three straight leaving office under suspicious circumstances. Yet, the replacement will be elected in November and we'll start over.

In a single-party government, the absolute power corrupts absolutely

True!

But Nobody Listens Anymore!

grizzly said:
View attachment 157534

notdonhunting · Tuesday at 10:03 PM

grizzly said:
Elected officials keep giving taxpayer dollars to certain people and groups because there are no checks and balances in a single-party government.

It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...

But, rest assured, not a single incumbent will lose their seat over it.

Same thing with millions in tree projects, lake projects, and BGF funds. Most people don't know about it, and those who do can't stop it.

Same thing with our AG office. Is this three straight leaving office under suspicious circumstances. Yet, the replacement will be elected in November and we'll start over.

In a single-party government, the absolute power corrupts absolutely

View attachment 157534

The Lord has spoken.

elkassassin · 2024-09-11T04:44:41-0600

So?

Roller-Felling Gives Them A Bid For The Current Creek Project But After Being Awarded The Job They Claim It's Too Steep To Do The Roller-Felling?

Did Anybody Go Look At The Job/Terrain Before Giving The Bid?

Mallardsx2 · 2024-09-11T05:01:16-0600

It’s the way of the world…,

By the way, I can build rockets. Pay me $200,000,000. I’ll need $100,000,000 up from for setup costs.

23 months later, my final design….

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T06:39:49-0600

grizzly said:
It's also why this Amendment D stuff got through with all the bogus changes to State Law at the last second, such as Public Notice, who writes the description, required timelines, etc...

Everyone vote yes on this amendment! Look at Colorado and its wolves if you want a good reason why. (I won’t even bring up California…)

grizzly · 2024-09-11T06:51:37-0600

Vanilla said:
Everyone vote yes on this amendment! Look at Colorado and its wolves if you want a good reason why. (I won’t even bring up California…)

I'm honestly shocked you're that naive and shortsighted. We already have Prop 5 (2/3 rule for hunting related initiatives that would prevent something like wolves) and less than a dozen initiatives have passed since 1924. There is also no evidence that "foreign influence" is a problem in our ballot initiatives. Zero. It's never happened. Plus, the state recently made it even more difficult to reach the signature threshold to even get an initiative on the ballot with individual county minimums so an urban area can't overrule the rural areas, like what happened in Colorado.

To give the same legislators that pass our taxpayer money to BGF, sketchy tree projects, and illegal lake projects who also want to sell public land, veto power over the citizens is pure idiocy. It also can't be changed in the future because the legislators can veto THAT initiative if this is passed. Plus, this isn't just a law... It literally amends our Constitution!

They talk like they're worried about special interest money influencing elections, when in reality THEY'RE the ones taking money from special interests. They call them campaign donations.

We can each name a dozen shady things our legislators has done in the last five years. This amendment gives them veto power to keep doing them and there's nothing we can do to stop it. The Supreme Court ruled citizens have the right to reform our government. This Amendment literally votes ourselves out of that right.

I'm virtually speechless that you think something like the fear of a wolf initiative is a reason to do that. Notwithstanding Prop 5, which would prevent it anyway, there's a million other ways this amendment can be used against hunting interests... like with the selling of public land or the veto of gun rights initiative that the legislators don't like, but the citizens do.

This amendment would make it so the citizens can never defend themselves from government overreach directly at the ballot. They'd be forced to try and to do it by voting an incumbent out of office (which almost never happens) and only after the incumbent has passed a law the voters don't want. The voters ability to respond would only be after the legislators passed a horrible law anyway. There's no reason to put ourselves in that position.

You and I have had our differences, but I'm honestly shocked that you fell for that. Wow.

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T07:04:38-0600

I didn’t fall for anything. I’ve always felt ballot initiatives were the worst way to govern because they can’t be debated, tweaked, or modified once they get put out for signatures. Once it’s crafted and put out for signatures, it is yea or nay, nothing else.

I doubt I’d ever sign a ballot initiative and likely wouldn’t even for one I agreed with. This was long before the Supreme Court made them sacrosanct, which I think is wrong as well.

This position I have existed long before 75% of Utah finally discovered we actually have ballot initiatives a couple months ago.

Ballot initiatives are the worst way to govern. We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. There is a reason our founding fathers set the government up the way they did. Full democracy was on the table and rightfully rejected. But I love America and the constitution and prefer things to work they way they were intended.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T07:33:54-0600

grizzly said:
I'm honestly shocked you're that naive and shortsighted. We already have Prop 5 (2/3 rule for hunting related initiatives that would prevent something like wolves) and less than a dozen initiatives have passed since 1924. There is also no evidence that "foreign influence" is a problem in our ballot initiatives. Zero. It's never happened. Plus, the state recently made it even more difficult to reach the signature threshold to even get an initiative on the ballot with individual county minimums so an urban area can't overrule the rural areas, like what happened in Colorado.

To give the same legislators that pass our taxpayer money to BGF, sketchy tree projects, and illegal lake projects who also want to sell public land, veto power over the citizens is pure idiocy. It also can't be changed in the future because the legislators can veto THAT initiative if this is passed. Plus, this isn't just a law... It literally amends our Constitution!

They talk like they're worried about special interest money influencing elections, when in reality THEY'RE the ones taking money from special interests. They call them campaign donations.

We can each name a dozen shady things our legislators has done in the last five years. This amendment gives them veto power to keep doing them and there's nothing we can do to stop it. The Supreme Court ruled citizens have the right to reform our government. This Amendment literally votes ourselves out of that right.

I'm virtually speechless that you think something like the fear of a wolf initiative is a reason to do that. Notwithstanding Prop 5, which would prevent it anyway, there's a million other ways this amendment can be used against hunting interests... like with the selling of public land or the veto of gun rights initiative that the legislators don't like, but the citizens do.

This amendment would make it so the citizens can never defend themselves from government overreach directly at the ballot. They'd be forced to try and to do it by voting an incumbent out of office (which almost never happens) and only after the incumbent has passed a law the voters don't want. The voters ability to respond would only be after the legislators passed a horrible law anyway. There's no reason to put ourselves in that position.

You and I have had our differences, but I'm honestly shocked that you fell for that. Wow.

Prop 5 doesn't protect ballot initiatives dictating HOW we hunt. It doesn't dictate WHO can sit on what boards. It doesn't dictate HOW funding is done. It doesn't dictate seasons, lengths, areas, means of take, etc, etc, etc.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T07:35:37-0600

We're not only a Democratic Republic. We're a state led By The People. The Utah Supreme Court, appointed entirely by Republicans, ruled UNANIMOUSLY that we have the Right to reform our government directly. This Amendment 100% undoes that. It literally changes it Constitution to take rights away from The People.

To see the corruption in politics and then willfully hand all your rights to the politicians is mind-numbingly shocking.

With the protections of Prop 5, it is literally easier for the legislature to put wolves in Utah than it already is for a ballot initiative to do it. This amendment would make it impossible for the voters to overrule the legislature and stop the wolves. Insanity.

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T07:46:20-0600

I get it Grizz. Your fragile and overinflated ego couldn’t possibly allow you to conceive that anyone that disagrees with you is educated and well-versed on a topic, but is only duped or insane.

I’m sure those arguments go over well in your day job.

I believe what I believe. You can disagree. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time you were wrong.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T07:49:06-0600

hossblur said:
Prop 5 doesn't protect ballot initiatives dictating HOW we hunt. It doesn't dictate WHO can sit on what boards. It doesn't dictate HOW funding is done. It doesn't dictate seasons, lengths, areas, means of take, etc, etc, etc.

It requires 2/3 vote for any ballot initiative limiting or prohibiting taking of wildlife or method of take.

Screenshot_20240911_074434_Samsung Internet.jpg

To moveb this to public land, something that IS in contention right now. Let's say the legislature wins the land grab lawsuit and gets federal land. A group of citizens could lead a ballot initiative that requires that all public lands greater than 40 acres can never be sold. This would pass with ~80% approval in Utah as most people want it to remain public, albeit with state control.

The legislature can veto that if Amendment D passes. And we can't undo it. This is WAY bigger than wolves.

The same could be said with the right to possess firearms if we want rights the legislature doesn't want us to have.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T08:00:16-0600

Vanilla said:
I get it Grizz. Your fragile and overinflated ego couldn’t possibly allow you to conceive that anyone that disagrees with you is educated and well-versed on a topic, but is only duped or insane.

I’m sure those arguments go over well in your day job.

I believe what I believe. You can disagree. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time you were wrong.

Haha, we all know what your day job is lol. And now you've resorted to personal attacks, that's YOUR ego talking. You just don't like that somebody can call you out for your false arguments and red herrings. You like to believe you're the only one who can make a cogent argument and hate when people can match you blow for blow.

I've said many times to people that we can just agree to disagree, just yesterday to treed, for example. You've not ever taken that position, you just run to personal attacks and your repeated attempts to bully people by bringing up old arguments for years on end.

Like I said, you and I have had our disagreements, but I'm literally shocked that you fell for this one. I also know that it doesn't matter what anybody says or what evidence is put in front of you, your overinflated ego will never allow you to reconsider. So bull moose up all you want, I've seen it before.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T08:11:12-0600

grizzly said:
We're not only a Democratic Republic. We're a state led By The People. The Utah Supreme Court, appointed entirely by Republicans, ruled UNANIMOUSLY that we have the Right to reform our government directly. This Amendment 100% undoes that. It literally changes it Constitution to take rights away from The People.

To see the corruption in politics and then willfully hand all your rights to the politicians is mind-numbingly shocking.

With the protections of Prop 5, it is literally easier for the legislature to put wolves in Utah than it already is for a ballot initiative to do it. This amendment would make it impossible for the voters to overrule the legislature and stop the wolves. Insanity.

Fighting last years battles is naive.

The "game" isn't Colorado. The game is control of the WB boards. Hunters are the minority, we stand to lose in the initiative war.

And yeah, I trust my local state rep a hell of a lot more than national leadership of the humane society.

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T09:06:53-0600

Meh.

My dad can beat up your dad.

But as for Amendment D, everyone vote yes. There is a reason the people shouting the loudest that we have to "let the people decide" are also trying to remove Amendment D from the ballot so the people can't decide.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T11:09:47-0600

Vanilla said:
Meh.

My dad can beat up your dad.

But as for Amendment D, everyone vote yes. There is a reason the people shouting the loudest that we have to "let the people decide" are also trying to remove Amendment D from the ballot so the people can't decide.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Haha

The people trying to pass Amendment D are trying to NOT let the people decide by gutting the initiative process... The only way the people can directly pass legislation or reform their own government.

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T11:43:07-0600

grizzly said:
Haha

The people trying to pass Amendment D are trying to NOT let the people decide by gutting the initiative process... The only way the people can directly pass legislation or reform their own government.

"Not letting them decide by asking them to actually vote on it."

Yep, checks out logically! Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll actually believe it.

"We trust Utah voters to make good decisions..." Uh...until we don't.

Or in other words, we love the "voice of the people" so long as it perfectly aligns with our left of center ideals and goals.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T12:57:17-0600

Vanilla said:
"Not letting them decide by asking them to actually vote on it."

Yep, checks out logically! Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll actually believe it.

"We trust Utah voters to make good decisions..." Uh...until we don't.

Or in other words, we love the "voice of the people" so long as it perfectly aligns with our left of center ideals and goals.

The state already made it much harder to even get a ballot initiative on the ballot by having minimum signature requirements in EVERY county in the state within a short time period.

Amendment D is asking people to remove their rights to reform government in future amorphous, yet to be defined, ways.

Essentially, vote "Yes" today and then you won't have a vote in the future because the government has veto power over your yet to be conceived ballot initiatives. That's literally what this says.

Nobody can conceive of what the voters may want to do in the future (such as term limits for legislators, for example) but this Amendment would allow those very legislators to void the will of the people for their own benefit.

To pretend that this respects the will of the people to reform the government when we have no idea what the people may want to reform is absolutely misleading.

I'm saying to let the people vote. You're saying to vote today and then the people CAN'T vote in the future, and pretending that's what the people in a decade or generation will want. You're literally advocating the seizure of power from the unborn, because they will not have the ability to reform their government without elected official's approval.

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T13:02:03-0600

grizzly said:
I'm saying to let the people vote. You're saying to vote today and then the people CAN'T vote in the future, and pretending that's what the people in a decade or generation will want. You're literally advocating the seizure of power from the unborn, because they will not have the ability to reform their government without elected official's approval.

You’ve thrown around words like “misleading” and then you type this BS? I’m not even going to waste my time responding to a post that claims something “literally” does something that it literally does NOT do.

Go fact check your post and come back to me.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T13:03:39-0600

To be more clear...

I'm saying to let the people vote on their own issues.

Maybe it's to outlaw abortion, or legalize it to a certain term.

Maybe it's redistricting.

Maybe it's marijuana.

Maybe it's school choice.

Maybe it's Constitutional Carry of firearms.

Maybe it's Medicare reform.

Maybe it's the disposal of public land.

It could be countless subjects and Amendment D takes away the power of the people on ALL OF THEM.

To pretend that a blanket amendment rendering the people powerless to reform their own government is leaving the vote TO THE PEOPLE, when they're not voting on any actual issues...

IS TERRIBLY MISLEADING

grizzly · 2024-09-11T13:05:50-0600

Vanilla said:
You’ve thrown around words like “misleading” and then you type this BS? I’m not even going to waste my time responding to a post that claims something “literally” does something that it literally does NOT do.

Go fact check your post and come back to me.

Haha, you don't think it's misleading when the ballot says Amendment D "strengthens the initiative process" haha? There go your false arguments again by trying to distract from the actual discussion.

In no way does it "strengthen" the initiative process, yet that's the language. That's entirely misleading and even members of the GOP legislature have acknowledged that.

You know they had to change the law so the ballot language wasn't written neutrally, right? It literally required a change in state law.

Yeah, that happened in special session just a few weeks ago.

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T13:15:19-0600

I have never claimed the description by the legislature is not misleading. Don't make up arguments just because you're getting your ass kicked in this one. Stick to the facts only, Grizz.

What I did do is claim YOUR post is misleading. The constitutional amendment will do nothing that you are saying. You are saying it strips people of the power to do something and doesn't allow them to vote on those issues. That is not just misleading, as I was trying to be polite, that is a blatant lie!

What the amendment will do is allow the legislature to amend ballot initiatives that pass as a co-equal legislative body. Something that has always been understood to be the case and has actually happened pretty often over time.

The constitutional amendment does not prevent ballot intiatives, it simply says they are not sacrosanct like the Utah Supreme Court announced was our new rule recently. So I will say again, go fact check your statements and come back to me.

This whole "attack Vanilla as stupid and duped" and "act incredulously offended" becuase someone actually understands this better than you and still formed a different opinion schtick is bit is lame. Show me you're better than that, if you can.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T13:47:21-0600

grizzly said:
The state already made it much harder to even get a ballot initiative on the ballot by having minimum signature requirements in EVERY county in the state within a short time period.

Amendment D is asking people to remove their rights to reform government in future amorphous, yet to be defined, ways.

Essentially, vote "Yes" today and then you won't have a vote in the future because the government has veto power over your yet to be conceived ballot initiatives. That's literally what this says.

Nobody can conceive of what the voters may want to do in the future (such as term limits for legislators, for example) but this Amendment would allow those very legislators to void the will of the people for their own benefit.

To pretend that this respects the will of the people to reform the government when we have no idea what the people may want to reform is absolutely misleading.

I'm saying to let the people vote. You're saying to vote today and then the people CAN'T vote in the future, and pretending that's what the people in a decade or generation will want. You're literally advocating the seizure of power from the unborn, because they will not have the ability to reform their government without elected official's approval.

I wasn't allowed to vote on checkerboard landscapes, location of reservations and their rules, or a million other things voted on prior to my birth.

My Kids didn't get to vote on prop 5.

So are we now going to revote on everything every few years so as to not steal that ability from future generations?

grizzly · 2024-09-11T18:39:06-0600

Vanilla said:
I have never claimed the description by the legislature is not misleading. Don't make up arguments just because you're getting your ass kicked in this one. Stick to the facts only, Grizz.

What I did do is claim YOUR post is misleading. The constitutional amendment will do nothing that you are saying. You are saying it strips people of the power to do something and doesn't allow them to vote on those issues. That is not just misleading, as I was trying to be polite, that is a blatant lie!

What the amendment will do is allow the legislature to amend ballot initiatives that pass as a co-equal legislative body. Something that has always been understood to be the case and has actually happened pretty often over time.

The constitutional amendment does not prevent ballot intiatives, it simply says they are not sacrosanct like the Utah Supreme Court announced was our new rule recently. So I will say again, go fact check your statements and come back to me.

This whole "attack Vanilla as stupid and duped" and "act incredulously offended" becuase someone actually understands this better than you and still formed a different opinion schtick is bit is lame. Show me you're better than that, if you can.

Omfg, you're off the rails dude! Your entire post is complete BS.

You either don't understand the issues at all, which is likely the case since you call this a "new rule" knowing full well it was a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court affirming government reform as a core right bestowed upon the citizens by our Constitution.

Or, you're just still bitter about your Stream Access loss and are trying to stick it to the Supreme Court.

One thing is crystal clear, you DO NOT accurately present the issues. Thankfully, some of the best and brightest attorneys in the state are working to protect the rights of the citizens from the lies of the power hungry politicians.

I pray they prevail and this gets tossed as the illegal power grab that it is. Should the Courts let it continue, hopefully the citizens will reject it overwhelmingly and hold those politicians responsible.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T18:42:39-0600

hossblur said:
I wasn't allowed to vote on checkerboard landscapes, location of reservations and their rules, or a million other things voted on prior to my birth.

My Kids didn't get to vote on prop 5.

So are we now going to revote on everything every few years so as to not steal that ability from future generations?

If you want to meet the incredibly high threshold of getting a ballot initiative passed (it was made even more difficult a few years ago), then we can vote on it. That's democracy and a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Ballot initiatives will never happen again if Amendment D passes because the expense and time it takes to meet the signature threshold is gutted when the legislature can veto it all in one Special Session on a random day with no fanfare or public comment.

You'd literally be voting yourself out of ALL future citizen-led initiatives. You're taking away the right to reform the government in ways we can't even conceive of today.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T19:37:58-0600

QUOTE="grizzly, post: 2310949, member: 1465"]
If you want to meet the incredibly high threshold of getting a ballot initiative passed (it was made even more difficult a few years ago), then we can vote on it. That's democracy and a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Ballot initiatives will never happen again if Amendment D passes because the expense and time it takes to meet the signature threshold is gutted when the legislature can veto it all in one Special Session on a random day with no fanfare or public comment.

You'd literally be voting yourself out of ALL future citizen-led initiatives. You're taking away the right to reform the government in ways we can't even conceive of today.
[/QUOTE]

I like how you moved the goalpost there.

I have a chance to reform government about every 2 years. I just recently did so. It's called voting in elections. What you want is an end run on majority vote.

If you can't make a persuasive argument in either a primary or general, then you don't deserve a third shot.

But again, because this is a hunting page, NO I don't want the real housewives of SLC getting to vote on whether I can hunt a bear, hunt a swan, hunt a cat, etc. And you need only look on Utah borders to see how the initiative process is being used.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T19:41:55-0600

Update: A 3rd District Judge will rule tonight; though, whatever the ruling, I doubt this is the end of the battle. Here's an article regarding the hearings today...

_________________

A judge says she will decide by Wednesday night whether to disqualify Amendment D — a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing that lawmakers can repeal citizen ballot initiatives — from the ballot.

Attorneys for the lieutenant governor’s office stressed that time is of the essence, since ballots have to be sent to be printed by Thursday morning in order to meet federal deadlines for getting them to overseas voters — military personnel, LDS Church missionaries, diplomats and others.

During arguments that lasted more than 90 minutes Wednesday, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson pressed lawyers for the state over whether it is inaccurate for ballots to say the amendment would “strengthen the initiative process.” If passed, the amendment would essentially reverse a ruling by the Utah Supreme Court that prevents the Legislature from repealing a government reform initiative without a “compelling reason.”

“Does it give the Legislature more authority with regard to laws that are successfully passed by citizen initiative?” Gibson asked Tyler Green, the lawyer representing the Legislature.

“No, I don’t think it does, Your Honor,” Green replied. “What it does, I think, is what the ballot summary description says, which is strengthens and clarifies the way that the state’s historical representative democracy path and direct democracy path have always been understood to operate.”

But Mark Gaber, arguing for groups trying to have Amendment D disqualified, said a reasonably intelligent voter who reads the ballot question would think that the way the amendment strengthens the process is by putting limits on the Legislature’s ability to undo initiatives.

“It is counterfactual,” he said. “It is 100% false to say that if the voters vote yes on the amendment, state law will be changed to require the Legislature to respect the intent of voters when they pass an initiative. It does the precise opposite of that.”

Gaber also argued that the Legislature failed to meet a constitutional mandate that it publish the text of the amendment in newspapers around the state before the amendment is put on the ballot.

Green countered that the text was available on the Legislature’s website and was added to the lieutenant governor’s website on Monday. He likened the constitutional requirementthat it be published in newspapers to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which does not apply only to arms that existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Publishing it online, he said, provides substantially the same notice, and he pointed to declarations from voters who said they had read the amendment text online.

The judge asked whether the court can decide that the constitutional mandate for “publication in a newspaper is something other than publication in a newspaper?”

Green maintained that distributing information online “is now firmly and definitively established as part of what it means to be a newspaper.”

But Gaber argued that some Utahns, particularly the elderly, may not be able to easily find the amendment. And since voter guides are no longer printed and mailed to homes, voters may never read the actual amendment before voting — which is even more crucial, Gaber said, because the question presented on the ballot is “entirely false.”

The ballot language in question was written by Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams under a law changed by the Republican legislators earlier this year, which took the job away from the Legislature’s nonpartisan attorneys.

As it is written, the ballots would ask voters if they want to “strengthen the initiative process” by banning “foreign influence” in initiatives and “clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.”

Lance Sorensen, an assistant attorney general representing the lieutenant governor’s office, urged Gibson to let the ballots be printed with the Amendment D language, even if she was inclined to rule that the language is misleading or that the state failed to publish the text of the amendment as required.

That way, he said, if her ruling is appealed and overturned by the Utah Supreme Court, the ballots would not need to be reprinted, which may not be possible given the time crunch. If the ruling is upheld, he said, clerks could simply be instructed to ignore the votes for or against Amendment D.

Republican lawmakers hastily passed the proposed amendment during an “emergency” special legislative session last month to overturn a unanimous July ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. The justices — all Republican appointees — ruled the Legislature must give a degree of deference to a 2018 initiative that prohibited partisan gerrymandering, the practice of drawing political boundaries to benefit one political party at the expense of the other.

Legislators repealed the provision banning gerrymandering in 2020 and adopted the boundaries they saw fit, splitting Salt Lake County, one of the most liberal parts of the state, into four congressional districts.

Supporters of the anti-gerrymandering initiative — the League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a number of residents impacted by the split — sued, saying the boundaries were unfair and the Legislature defied the constitutional right of voters to reform their government through the initiative process.

Green
argued there were numerous groups — the Utah Republican Party, The Sutherland Institute, Pro-Life Utah and others — who argued the court’s ruling hamstrung the Legislature if it needed to adjust voter-approved initiatives and wanted voters to decide if the Utah Constitution should be amended to ensure the Legislature can repeal or amend any initiative.

In a brief filed with the court Wednesday, Green and the lieutenant governor’s lawyer argued the courts should give Schultz and Adams deference to write the language, that removing the issue from the ballot would be unprecedented, and that the plaintiffs’ objections to the words “strengthen” and “clarifying” are subjective.

Will Amendment D stay on the ballot? Judge says she will rule tonight.

Attorneys for the Utah Legislature argued Wednesday that it’s opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment that would empower state lawmakers to repeal or amend voter-approved ballot initiatives, and not Republican legislators, who are trying to deny citizens a voice in government by trying...

www.sltrib.com

grizzly · 2024-09-11T19:46:14-0600

hossblur said:
I like how you moved the goalpost there.

I have a chance to reform government about every 2 years. I just recently did so. It's called voting in elections. What you want is an end run on majority vote.

I didn't move the goalposts at all. You gave historical examples and tried to make the argument that because they happened in the past that voters shouldn't get a say in the future either. It makes no sense. The fact that WWII happened before I was born has nothing to do with letting me participate in the reform of my government tomorrow.

My position is 100% not an end run on majority vote. It would preserve majority vote. The Legislature is the one trying to end run majority vote by getting people to give up their rights today so they can't vote on the actual issues tomorrow. Whatever those issues may be.

The idea that elections are where these issues will be decided was proved wrong the day the people voted on redistricting, Medicare, and marijuana and overruled Congress... clearly what the majority wanted... but didn't kick out their legislators the following election.

The power of incumbency is too great and I just provided real, live perfect examples of how initiatives allowed the people to reform their government in ways that typical elections do not. On an issue-specific basis.

That, my friend, is the majority rule the power hungry politicians want to take away with Amendment D.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T19:56:17-0600

grizzly said:
I didn't move the goalposts at all. You gave historical examples and tried to make the argument that because they happened in the past that voters shouldn't get a say in the future either. It makes no sense. The fact that WWII happened before I was born has nothing to do with letting the people reform their government tomorrow.

My position is 100% not an end run on majority vote. It would preserve majority vote. The Legislature is the one trying to end run majority vote by getting people to give up their rights today so they can't vote on the actual issues tomorrow. Whatever they may be.

It's amazing watching you try and pretend the initiative process is just a grassroots process. And I know you are well read and well versed.

The initiative process is used by special interest groups to end run the vote of the citizens.

Whether it's the LDS church in California gay rights issues, or the humane society in Colorado, or WWF in Arizona and Washington, it's not a grass roots or thing. It's a huge bank, special interest thing.

The quickest way for non SLC/ Park City citizens to get dictated to, is to allow them the chance to bypass elected representatives and allow a concentrated voter block to run the state...

We don't live in a democracy for a reason.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T20:04:31-0600

grizzly said:
Update: A 3rd District Judge will rule tonight; though, whatever the ruling, I doubt this is the end of the battle. Here's an article regarding the hearings today...

_________________

A judge says she will decide by Wednesday night whether to disqualify Amendment D — a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing that lawmakers can repeal citizen ballot initiatives — from the ballot.

Attorneys for the lieutenant governor’s office stressed that time is of the essence, since ballots have to be sent to be printed by Thursday morning in order to meet federal deadlines for getting them to overseas voters — military personnel, LDS Church missionaries, diplomats and others.

During arguments that lasted more than 90 minutes Wednesday, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson pressed lawyers for the state over whether it is inaccurate for ballots to say the amendment would “strengthen the initiative process.” If passed, the amendment would essentially reverse a ruling by the Utah Supreme Court that prevents the Legislature from repealing a government reform initiative without a “compelling reason.”

“Does it give the Legislature more authority with regard to laws that are successfully passed by citizen initiative?” Gibson asked Tyler Green, the lawyer representing the Legislature.

“No, I don’t think it does, Your Honor,” Green replied. “What it does, I think, is what the ballot summary description says, which is strengthens and clarifies the way that the state’s historical representative democracy path and direct democracy path have always been understood to operate.”

But Mark Gaber, arguing for groups trying to have Amendment D disqualified, said a reasonably intelligent voter who reads the ballot question would think that the way the amendment strengthens the process is by putting limits on the Legislature’s ability to undo initiatives.

“It is counterfactual,” he said. “It is 100% false to say that if the voters vote yes on the amendment, state law will be changed to require the Legislature to respect the intent of voters when they pass an initiative. It does the precise opposite of that.”

Gaber also argued that the Legislature failed to meet a constitutional mandate that it publish the text of the amendment in newspapers around the state before the amendment is put on the ballot.

Green countered that the text was available on the Legislature’s website and was added to the lieutenant governor’s website on Monday. He likened the constitutional requirementthat it be published in newspapers to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which does not apply only to arms that existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Publishing it online, he said, provides substantially the same notice, and he pointed to declarations from voters who said they had read the amendment text online.

The judge asked whether the court can decide that the constitutional mandate for “publication in a newspaper is something other than publication in a newspaper?”

Green maintained that distributing information online “is now firmly and definitively established as part of what it means to be a newspaper.”

But Gaber argued that some Utahns, particularly the elderly, may not be able to easily find the amendment. And since voter guides are no longer printed and mailed to homes, voters may never read the actual amendment before voting — which is even more crucial, Gaber said, because the question presented on the ballot is “entirely false.”

The ballot language in question was written by Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams under a law changed by the Republican legislators earlier this year, which took the job away from the Legislature’s nonpartisan attorneys.

As it is written, the ballots would ask voters if they want to “strengthen the initiative process” by banning “foreign influence” in initiatives and “clarifying the voters and legislative bodies’ ability to amend laws.”

Lance Sorensen, an assistant attorney general representing the lieutenant governor’s office, urged Gibson to let the ballots be printed with the Amendment D language, even if she was inclined to rule that the language is misleading or that the state failed to publish the text of the amendment as required.

That way, he said, if her ruling is appealed and overturned by the Utah Supreme Court, the ballots would not need to be reprinted, which may not be possible given the time crunch. If the ruling is upheld, he said, clerks could simply be instructed to ignore the votes for or against Amendment D.

Republican lawmakers hastily passed the proposed amendment during an “emergency” special legislative session last month to overturn a unanimous July ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. The justices — all Republican appointees — ruled the Legislature must give a degree of deference to a 2018 initiative that prohibited partisan gerrymandering, the practice of drawing political boundaries to benefit one political party at the expense of the other.

Legislators repealed the provision banning gerrymandering in 2020 and adopted the boundaries they saw fit, splitting Salt Lake County, one of the most liberal parts of the state, into four congressional districts.

Supporters of the anti-gerrymandering initiative — the League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a number of residents impacted by the split — sued, saying the boundaries were unfair and the Legislature defied the constitutional right of voters to reform their government through the initiative process.

Green
argued there were numerous groups — the Utah Republican Party, The Sutherland Institute, Pro-Life Utah and others — who argued the court’s ruling hamstrung the Legislature if it needed to adjust voter-approved initiatives and wanted voters to decide if the Utah Constitution should be amended to ensure the Legislature can repeal or amend any initiative.

In a brief filed with the court Wednesday, Green and the lieutenant governor’s lawyer argued the courts should give Schultz and Adams deference to write the language, that removing the issue from the ballot would be unprecedented, and that the plaintiffs’ objections to the words “strengthen” and “clarifying” are subjective.

Will Amendment D stay on the ballot? Judge says she will rule tonight.

Attorneys for the Utah Legislature argued Wednesday that it’s opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment that would empower state lawmakers to repeal or amend voter-approved ballot initiatives, and not Republican legislators, who are trying to deny citizens a voice in government by trying...

www.sltrib.com

So, to summarize.

The supposed "we want everyone to vote" crowd, wants a single judge to dictate to the entire state.

Gotcha

grizzly · 2024-09-11T20:05:34-0600

hossblur said:
It's amazing watching you try and pretend the initiative process is just a grassroots process. And I know you are well read and well versed.

The initiative process is used by special interest groups to end run the vote of the citizens.

Whether it's the LDS church in California gay rights issues, or the humane society in Colorado, or WWF in Arizona and Washington, it's not a grass roots or thing. It's a huge bank, special interest thing.

The quickest way for non SLC/ Park City citizens to get dictated to, is to allow them the chance to bypass elected representatives and allow a concentrated voter block to run the state...

We don't live in a democracy for a reason.

The signature requirements for a ballot initiative exist for that reason. The proponents must get over 134,000 signatures to get an initiative on a ballot. That includes the following amount in EACH of 26 of the 29 Senate Districts.

Its impossible for SLC or Park City to overrule Kane and Juab and Box Elder and Wayne and Iron Counties. A required signature threshold exists in all the rural areas too.

This requirement was increased after the last ballot initiatives to make it more difficult to get initiatives on the ballot.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T20:08:32-0600

hossblur said:
So, to summarize.

The supposed "we want everyone to vote" crowd, wants a single judge to dictate to the entire state.

Gotcha

Nope, the Judicial Branch is being asked to protect the rights of the citizens from the Legislative Branch.

That's why we have co-equal branches. It's the way the system is designed.

PS. The purpose of Amendment D is the Legislative Branch trying to end run the rights guaranteed in our Constitution with an amendment designed to evade the Judicial Branch.

PPS. As I said, it's not going to be decided by a single judge. It'll go to the Supreme Court. Almost certainly.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T20:13:23-0600

grizzly said:
Nope, the Judicial Branch is being asked to protect the rights of the citizens from the Legislative Branch.

That's why we have co-equal branches. It's the way the system is designed.

PS. The purpose of Amendment D is the Legislative Branch trying to end run the rights guaranteed in our Constitution with an amendment designed to evade the Judicial Branch.

PPS. As I said, it's not going to be decided by a single judge. It'll go to the Supreme Court. Almost certainly.

Sorry.

Where did I get to vote on D before it was in court?

Funny how my vote doesn't matter to those who claim they are for voting.

It's in court over wording. Because us dumbass rubes don't understand English, so our betters must have a judge rule.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T20:19:25-0600

hossblur said:
Sorry.

Where did I get to vote on D before it was in court?

Funny how my vote doesn't matter to those who claim they are for voting.

It's in court over wording. Because us dumbass rubes don't understand English, so our betters must have a judge rule.

Nobody got to vote or comment on Amendment D before it was put on the ballot. It was done so hastily, just a few weeks ago, that the Legislature had to change the law because their timeline was too short to meet current existing law. Those laws exist for a reason, so the public has a chance to contact their local politicians and make their voices heard. All that was taken away.

This was all done with no public comment, no chance to call your elected officials, and no newspaper publication or neutral explanation. It took many changes to existing law to rush this through under cover of darkness in an "emergency special session" just a few weeks ago.

Opponents haven't even been able to have signs printed to oppose it because the legislature is trying to rush it through without the public knowing the details.

In no way is this getting a fair shake, Schultz and Adams are doing their best to ensure that.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T21:00:23-0600

grizzly said:
Nobody got to vote or comment on Amendment D before it was put on the ballot. It was done so hastily, just a few weeks ago, that the Legislature had to change the law because their timeline was too short to meet current existing law. Those laws exist for a reason, so the public has a chance to contact their local politicians and make their voices heard. All that was taken away.

This was all done with no public comment, no chance to call your elected officials, and no newspaper publication or neutral explanation. It took many changes to existing law to rush this through under cover of darkness in an "emergency special session" just a few weeks ago.

Opponents haven't even been able to have signs printed to oppose it because the legislature is trying to rush it through without the public knowing the details.

In no way is this getting a fair shake, Schultz and Adams are doing their best to ensure that.

You gotta decide where your at.

There was enough time to hire lawyers and get to court, but......

We want the voters to decide but........

It's not getting a fair shake so don't let voters vote, let a judge decide

I guess I just trust my neighbors in Hooper to decide if they want Shultz speaking for them, I realize, an appointed Supreme Court Judge will much better represent their interests.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T21:05:42-0600

hossblur said:
You gotta decide where your at.

There was enough time to hire lawyers and get to court, but......

We want the voters to decide but........

It's not getting a fair shake so don't let voters vote, let a judge decide

I guess I just trust my neighbors in Hooper to decide if they want Shultz speaking for them, I realize, an appointed Supreme Court Judge will much better represent their interests.

Politicians take money from special interests, judges don't.

And, no, there wasn't enough time to hire lawyers other than a quick hearing on an emergency schedule. Courts typically take years, this was a few days. This was held on a truncated timeline and the judge is ruling tonight because of it.

hossblur · 2024-09-11T21:15:35-0600

grizzly said:
Politicians take money from special interests, judges don't.

And, no, there wasn't enough time to hire lawyers other than a quick hearing on an emergency schedule. Courts typically take years, this was a few days. This was held on a truncated timeline and the judge is ruling tonight because of it.

So, I guess just allowing folks to vote was out of the question?

You know, democracy and all?

I know, you have to suspend democracy in order to save it. Seems a pattern among the left

Vanilla · 2024-09-11T21:37:49-0600

I didn’t read all the posts, but I’ll reiterate that Grizz wants a judge to remove this question from the ballot so that Utahns are prevented from voting. In fact, by his own words he’s praying for that!

I’m just going to leave that out there and let everyone decide who is off the rails for themselves.

grizzly said:
I pray they prevail and this gets tossed as the illegal power grab that it is.

Grizz, you aren’t as well versed on this as you think. Not sure where you’re getting your info, but you’re objectively wrong. Oh well. I. An explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

Praying for a judge to determine unilaterally decide that Utahns shouldn’t be able to vote on this policy issue? By their fruits ye shall know them.

Sounds a lot like someone the believes the people should decide. Yep, sure does!

grizzly · 2024-09-11T22:27:21-0600

Vanilla said:
I didn’t read all the posts, but I’ll reiterate that Grizz wants a judge to remove this question from the ballot so that Utahns are prevented from voting. In fact, by his own words he’s praying for that!

I’m just going to leave that out there and let everyone decide who is off the rails for themselves.

Grizz, you aren’t as well versed on this as you think. Not sure where you’re getting your info, but you’re objectively wrong. Oh well. I. An explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

Praying for a judge to determine unilaterally decide that Utahns shouldn’t be able to vote on this policy issue? By their fruits ye shall know them.

Sounds a lot like someone the believes the people should decide. Yep, sure does!

Backatcha, slick. Notice how the article discussing the hearing this afternoon had many of the exact same arguments I've been making? Yeah, I was saying the same things as the attorneys before they even said them. My information and take on things are accurate. Yours is wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated.

I'm not predicting an outcome, judges are too fickle sometimes, but I'm comfortable with my position and some brilliant attorneys made the exact same arguments that I've made. I'm in good company.

PS. I'm all for letting the citizens vote on Amendment D... with the proper notifications, notices, and safeguards that have long been honored for important legislation like a Constitutional Amendment. Hence the reason I've mentioned that a dozen times already.

They can come back in two years and bring it for a vote. I'm still going to lobby against it, but there is a process for amendments for a reason and when those processes are followed, the people can decide.

grizzly · 2024-09-11T22:43:04-0600

Here's an even better article with the actual language from the hearing today. It's pretty much exactly what I've said and the judge asked very pointed questions that go exactly to what I've written here. I don't know how she'll rule, but regardless of how much niller thinks he knows, he's missing a ton on this issue. The judge at least appears to take it seriously that we're being misled by the legislature...