Skip to main content

I Like the New House Rules, Too

The people decide who represent them in the legislature. When the majority party in the legislature arbitrarily limits what legislation those in the minority party can introduce, this upsets the election balance established by the voters. A recent change in the rules permitting more fairness in the Utah House of Representatives is a welcome turn of events.


What shenanigans did the Utah Democrats pull on the Republicans when Democrats were in the majority? Were the Utah Democrats ever in the majority...?

We've recently seen what the Democrats in the US congress can do to limit the ability of the Republicans to do their jobs--the same thing the Republicans have been doing to the Democrats for the last 13 years. Similarly, current-gerrymanderers-in-power (regardless of party) have taken gerrymandering to a new art in an effort to perpetuate their power.

The kind of animosity and unfairness this engenders makes me glad, even though I'm a Republican, that Republican Representative Steve Urquhart made changes to House Rules to provide more fairness. When the people elect their representatives, they expect them to be able to introduce legislation; often in the past this has not been allowed by the majority party to happen. There are still hurdles for the Democrats; being in the minority, their legislation could still be voted down in committee by the majority Republicans, but at least under the new rules every representative on a committee "gets to pick a certain number of bills to be considered for debate."

Just because we think that something is not right doesn't give us the authority to squelch the voices of those who have been elected who have an opposite point of view. They should be able to fully represent their constituents as well. The bills being considered by the Utah legislature should be more reflective of the makeup of the legislature than they have been--due to Republican conniving--in the past.

Rep Urquhart said of the rules change:

I take some pride in how I've run other committees up here. I like to protect all members' rights — we are all elected, Republicans and Democrats, by constituents.


Democrats in the Utah House are pleased with the changes. So am I. I suspect this will lead to more collegiality, and to an overall better product, in the Utah legislature.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Scott Hinrichs1/30/2007 11:59:00 AM

    Rep. Urquhart admits that his move has a somewhat less egalitarian motive as well: it reduces his workload. He is using free market principles in the legislative process. Not a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

Why Do Liberals Coddle the Radical Islamic Monster?

Many liberals and progressives in the United States and elsewhere support a radical Islamic fundamentalist movement which, if it came to power, would quickly wipe out their liberal progressive ideology. Why then, do so many liberals coddle the monster that would destroy them? The Answer lies in their long-stemmed hatred of Western liberty and free markets. Dick Morris' new revelation of Hillary Clinton's ties to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism provides an excellent backdrop for me to ask the question that Greg Allen of The Right Balance has been asking for quite some time, to wit: If many liberals stand for free sexuality, homosexuality, the use of drugs, binge drinking, and other mindless expressions of individuality, why do so many of them also look the other way when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism? Don't they know that Iran has put to death as many as 4,000 homosexuals? Don't they know that if Islamists come to power they will not only make sexual perversi...
52 comments
Read more

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...
50 comments
Read more