On Saturday evening I attended a dinner and award ceremony where the Utah County Democratic Party presented their Distinguished Service Award to the former Governor of Utah Olene Walker.
It was mentioned several times during the evening that it was interesting that, in these times of harsh partisan politics, the Democratic Party would give this award to a Republican public servant. As Governor Walker spoke, however, it became clear why she is such a worthy recipient.
Her remarks centered on two messages. The first was the need for bipartisanship in legislation and in leadership. She described her experience both campaigning and serving in the legislature and later in the executive offices. She claimed that all people agree on 80% of the issues, but that 20% is driving people apart. She decried those who were more concerned about partisan victory than beneficial public policy. She challenged the candidates and elected officials to work together and to be statesmen, and stateswomen, in the best sense of the word.
Her second message was equally compelling--the need for adequate support for public education, both K-12 and higher education. She cited not only the statistics that show Utah funding education lower than any state in the country (in 51st place!) but the falling commitment from taxpayers, shown as the percentage of their income dedicated to the education of the next generation. She said it was her goal to live to see education funded in 49th place and warned that she didn't intend to live forever!
Her comments and the entertaining talk given by former legislator Scott Howell pointed out just how dedicated, courageous, open, honest, and absolutely charming Governor Walker is. I was inspired that evening. Olene Walker is a new hero of mine.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Straight Party Voters
Utah has an unusual, if not unique ballot, in that it asks the voter if they want to vote a "straight party" ballot. After the last election, one voter I spoke to thought the ballot asked him to identify his party affiliation. He said he clicked on Republican and bam! the whole ballot was finished. He returned home disappointed that his study of the candidates had been for nothing.
The State Conventions have now been held and the Democratic nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor are a bipartisan pair. Peter Corroon chose as his running mate Cheryl Allen, a Republican. If this has happened in Utah politics since the Governor and Lt Governor became tied together as candidates, I don't remember it. Representative Allen has made it clear that although she is running as the partner to the Democratic candidate, she still considers herself a Republican.
It has, however, got me wondering how the straight party ballot will handle the situation. You cannot vote for more than one person for a specific office but if you decide to vote straight Republican, wouldn't that give Cheryl Allen a vote too? And would a straight Democrat vote go to Peter Corroon, when it would end up giving a vote to a Republican as well?
I have, in the past, voted for candidates all from the same party, but I have never used the straight party option on the ballot. And after running a campaign, I never would. It is such a great sacrifice and service to run for office! I believe that every voter should give candidates the respect of, at the very least, looking at each name on the ballot as they choose their officials. It gives the appearance, if only to oneself, of voting thoughtfully.
I hope that the bipartisan ticket in the Governor's race results in the demise of the straight party option on the Utah election ballot. It is a practice that needs to go.
The State Conventions have now been held and the Democratic nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor are a bipartisan pair. Peter Corroon chose as his running mate Cheryl Allen, a Republican. If this has happened in Utah politics since the Governor and Lt Governor became tied together as candidates, I don't remember it. Representative Allen has made it clear that although she is running as the partner to the Democratic candidate, she still considers herself a Republican.
It has, however, got me wondering how the straight party ballot will handle the situation. You cannot vote for more than one person for a specific office but if you decide to vote straight Republican, wouldn't that give Cheryl Allen a vote too? And would a straight Democrat vote go to Peter Corroon, when it would end up giving a vote to a Republican as well?
I have, in the past, voted for candidates all from the same party, but I have never used the straight party option on the ballot. And after running a campaign, I never would. It is such a great sacrifice and service to run for office! I believe that every voter should give candidates the respect of, at the very least, looking at each name on the ballot as they choose their officials. It gives the appearance, if only to oneself, of voting thoughtfully.
I hope that the bipartisan ticket in the Governor's race results in the demise of the straight party option on the Utah election ballot. It is a practice that needs to go.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Heat in Arizona
The news from Arizona has spread like wildfire across the nation. Their response to the problems they face from illegal immigration has sparked fiery reactions within their state and throughout the country.
The borders around the United States have been porous over this country's history. The attitudes of Americans, especially in the west, have generally been formed by the wide open spaces. The cowboys sang "Don't fence me in" and the school children sang "This land was made for you and me!" Another characteristic of Americans is the expectation that, unlike many other countries, we do not have to justify our presence with identity cards.
Once our nation virtually filled the continent, the east and west borders had oceans for boundaries. By and large, our northern neighbors were satisfied with their lives as Canadians so that borderline was uncontentious. It is the southern border that has become a greater problem of late.
Reports of the lawless conditions in border towns, such as Ciudad Juárez, are frightening. Drug cartels are responsible for kidnappings, extortion, and brutal murders against Mexican law enforcement, competing gangs, and ordinary citizens, in order to keep them in submission. This violence is beginning to spill over the border and has residents on the US side anxious.
One result is a law that allows Arizona law enforcement to require people whom they suspect, to show proof of legal status. It defines presence without appropriate documentation as a crime, in fact, a misdemeanor not to carry the documentation.
The controversy this bill has sparked is interesting. Opposition voices predict that members of the Spanish-speaking community will be unwilling to call the police for help, to speak up as victims or witnesses to crime. There is also fear that this will result in racial profiling by police, since only race and language can give an appearance of a non-citizen. It is seen as a racist bill. The Governor who signed it into law says that we must trust law enforcement more than that.
I have been asked my position on this bill and it is somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, I can understand the frustration of the people of Arizona who created it. The fear of the lawlessness they are seeing spill over the border is provocative.
The question of the same sort of law in other states, including Utah, is a separate matter. I am unconvinced by those who justify the requirement we all carry identification documents by saying that we are burdened by the cost of social services to the undocumented. The undocumented all pay sales taxes and often Social Security and income taxes, but are unwilling to claim benefits or tax refunds for fear of being detected. We do have crime among the people in our state and some can be traced to undocumented immigrants but it is not at the level that the border states must deal with.
This Arizona bill has sparked nation-wide responses, both in favor and in opposition to the law. The best result may be that it motivates the Federal Government to craft immigration reform that addresses the fears of violent or property crime, the needs of labor for agriculture and business, and the values we place on freedom from governmental scrutiny of its law-abiding citizens. If this is what comes of the Arizona law, it will be worth the uproar it has caused.
When I mentioned to a neighbor that I felt the Arizona law was draconian, he asked me how I would answer to the immigrants who had made the decision to come to the United States through legal means. I don't know that I will ever be asked to answer to them. I am convinced, however, that there will come a time when I will be asked to answer for my attitudes toward my neighbors by one who has said, "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in."
The borders around the United States have been porous over this country's history. The attitudes of Americans, especially in the west, have generally been formed by the wide open spaces. The cowboys sang "Don't fence me in" and the school children sang "This land was made for you and me!" Another characteristic of Americans is the expectation that, unlike many other countries, we do not have to justify our presence with identity cards.
Once our nation virtually filled the continent, the east and west borders had oceans for boundaries. By and large, our northern neighbors were satisfied with their lives as Canadians so that borderline was uncontentious. It is the southern border that has become a greater problem of late.
Reports of the lawless conditions in border towns, such as Ciudad Juárez, are frightening. Drug cartels are responsible for kidnappings, extortion, and brutal murders against Mexican law enforcement, competing gangs, and ordinary citizens, in order to keep them in submission. This violence is beginning to spill over the border and has residents on the US side anxious.
One result is a law that allows Arizona law enforcement to require people whom they suspect, to show proof of legal status. It defines presence without appropriate documentation as a crime, in fact, a misdemeanor not to carry the documentation.
The controversy this bill has sparked is interesting. Opposition voices predict that members of the Spanish-speaking community will be unwilling to call the police for help, to speak up as victims or witnesses to crime. There is also fear that this will result in racial profiling by police, since only race and language can give an appearance of a non-citizen. It is seen as a racist bill. The Governor who signed it into law says that we must trust law enforcement more than that.
I have been asked my position on this bill and it is somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, I can understand the frustration of the people of Arizona who created it. The fear of the lawlessness they are seeing spill over the border is provocative.
The question of the same sort of law in other states, including Utah, is a separate matter. I am unconvinced by those who justify the requirement we all carry identification documents by saying that we are burdened by the cost of social services to the undocumented. The undocumented all pay sales taxes and often Social Security and income taxes, but are unwilling to claim benefits or tax refunds for fear of being detected. We do have crime among the people in our state and some can be traced to undocumented immigrants but it is not at the level that the border states must deal with.
This Arizona bill has sparked nation-wide responses, both in favor and in opposition to the law. The best result may be that it motivates the Federal Government to craft immigration reform that addresses the fears of violent or property crime, the needs of labor for agriculture and business, and the values we place on freedom from governmental scrutiny of its law-abiding citizens. If this is what comes of the Arizona law, it will be worth the uproar it has caused.
When I mentioned to a neighbor that I felt the Arizona law was draconian, he asked me how I would answer to the immigrants who had made the decision to come to the United States through legal means. I don't know that I will ever be asked to answer to them. I am convinced, however, that there will come a time when I will be asked to answer for my attitudes toward my neighbors by one who has said, "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
