Comments about ‘How should lawmakers redraw political districts?’

It is absolute nonsense that Republicans have to compete for moderate voters in Utah outside of Salt Lake County and Park City. Look at Mike Lee. As long as the second district contains a big chunk of Salt Lake County, Matheson can be Congressman for life if he chooses. Might as well give him a safe district so the Republicans can be free to nominate Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun everywhere else.

Districts should be created such that conservative white male republicans win. That's what is supposed to happen. Never mind what they do in private.

Whatever HB477 prevents us from knowing. That's how they should be redrawn!

Redistricting will serve the ruling party, but the people lose.

The process should be done by a non-partisan group.

Yes, there will always be complaints, but the people will be served.

Call it a republic if your must, but the spirit of America cries out for democracy. And while perfect democracy in not even possible, to work toward it is a noble process.

Government representation in a democracy would be divided by the philosophy of the voters, not the economic occasion of where they live.

Representation by area of residence was more important at the time of writing the Constitution. People's status and philosophy were very much controlled by where a person lived. Today political philosophies are much more distributed and commingled throughout the state and the nation.

Representation by area allows politicians to defeat democracy.

Change the way we vote. Elect all national representatives by State wide election. Allow an individual to identify their political philosophy on there ballet along with their selection of candidates.

Count the ballots once by political philosophy and once for the representatives.

Determine the political make up of the states representatives according to the percentage of political philosophies and make the highest vote getters in each the winners.

This would of course moves us closer to democracy.

I'am no great fan of Matheson,to much of a Dino to me, but give me the likes of a Bishop or Chaffetz and I will take my tax liabilty elsewhere.

Personally, I am looking forward to the release of the districting software to the public. It might seem like an easy process, but once one starts moving lines around, my sense it that there will be tough choices to make for even the most honest and sincere among us attempting the exercise.

I encourage everyone who has occasion to pillory the committee to submit their own proposal. They can benefit from our perspectives.

Does a Representative ONLY represent a portion of the citizens of the State of Utah or does he represent all of them? The U.S. Constitution says that Representatives are apportioned based on population. I've read Article 1, Section 2 over and over and I can't find the magic words that describe a 'district' within a State.

The solution is simple: In 2012 let each voter choose 4 Representatives. If that's asking too much of the voters, then, because we have electronic voting, have four different ballots that are randomly (but equally) presented to the voters.

None of our three current Representatives serve only 1/3rd of the State. We don't have East Salt Lake, Middle Salt Lake and West Salt Lake. We have Salt Lake. We don't have East Utah, Middle Utah and West Utah, we have Utah.

All of the Representatives vote on the same bills in Congress, it's time to let all of the People of Utah vote on ALL Representatives.

If we did that, no one could cry 'foul' nor would there be arguing over artificial boundary lines.

Attaboy Mike.

Wile I seldom agree with Mike Richards, very seldom in fact, I agree with his idea of 4 Representatives for the State as a whole, in theory only. In a just and balanced world, or State in this matter, it would work. But here in Utah, with the most one sided, partisan voters in the Country, those citizens who differ from ulta conservitives would be left out. Excluded from any representation because they are, well, wrong. Not of another perspective, but wrong. Done. Too bad. If they don't like it, they are told to leave. It has been that way for the 50 plus years that I have lived here. Those with views that are left of total rebublican philosophies must fight for any representation, not just equal representation. Fact, not all people are fairly represented in this State. Richards idea would make is worse due to fact that the right wing voter, and thusly its legislature enjoy the power and control. They shut their eyes to any other view and the coruption that ensues.

Oh how I wish Mr. Richards proposal would work. 4 representatives working as one for all Utahans. Then, we all go to Disneyland!

On June 16, 1858, at the statehouse for the Republican State Convention, where he was selected to be the party's candidate for Senate, Abraham Lincoln gave his "House Divided" speech, where he carefully and truthfully spoke of the peril of a divided nation.

Utah is not physically divided. There are not two Utahs, a conservative Utah and a liberal Utah. There is one Utah. The people erect artificial barriers. The people choose opposing sides. Barriers and opposition never accomplish anything except to STOP PROGRESS.

The Nation knows that Utah has one Representative, not three. They know that Mr. Matheson will vote the Democrat Party line when his feet are held to the fire. They know that Mr. Bishop and Mr. Chaffetz will vote the Republican Party line when their feet are held to the fire. That leaves us with one vote instead of three. That weakens the influence that Utah should have in the House. That destroys the possibility of moving ahead united.

Letting the entire State vote on all Representatives might cure that problem.

Mr. Lincoln told us, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He was right, until we are united, we cannot stand.

True, there is but one physical Utah. But alas, there is a division in Utah. We all know that the LDS Church cast its influence and power on many issues, some where it is not pursuent to the law of Church vs/State, only prudent to its self intrests. Anyone, lay person, politician, media, religious official, etc. that states different is, trying to be polite here, not telling the truth.
There is a division, and I truely doubt that that will ever change, the power is too strong.
That is the point. The law states there must be a seperation between Church and State to protect all. There is not such in Utah. And the denial of said fact is another issue. Too many people vote on religious influences and not on the issues itself. Furthermore, throw the word moral in front of anything and the whole issue becomes schewed.
I wish more people would research, study other points of view, become more informed on thier own, and open thier minds to the fact that diversity is a part of what this Country, and State, is about.

There is NO law about separation of Church and State. The 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The onus is on Congress. There can be no laws written by Congress that limit the power, the authority, or the influence of the Church - any Church.

People came to Utah because State Governments passed laws prohibiting them and their doctrines.

The U.S. Congress stomped all over the 1st Amendment in their treatment of the LDS Church.

No matter how you feel about religion or about people who belong to a religion, do not ever think that the Constitution has a separation clause. That invisible clause was legislation from the courts - which is as far from Constitutional government as we can get. That is a form of monarchy when a man dictates laws from the bench.

The PEOPLE of Utah have the right to choose their Representatives without cowering before people who point fingers at them because of their religious affiliation.

It doesn't matter, the media and these authors will beat up on them for what it looks like, no matter what. In 2001 the Dnews hired Dan Jones to ask if Utahans support Congressman Hansen's proposal for all three Congressional Districts to have equal rural and urban them. They did as Jim Hansen suggested and as 65% of Utahans supported and when it was over everyone hated them for doing it.

Danged if you do, danged if you don't. The only "fair" thing they could do is draw them so Democrats win all 104 seats, then...MAYBE!

@Mike Richards:

Utah State Constitution:

Sec. 4. [Religious liberty.] The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment. No property qualification shall be required of any person to vote, or hold office, except as provided in this Constitution.

Pay close attention to this statement: "here shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."

The opposite situation lies in Nevada, which was just awarded a 4th seat. Democrats in Nevada are inclined to draw their districts such that a Republican can represent Northern Nevada, which tends to be rural and conservative.

Of course, they could split Las Vegas into 4 pie pieces extending throughout the state and pave the way for all four Nevada Representatives be Democrats.

Something tells me if they were in the same situation as their Nevada GOP counterparts, Utah Republicans would see the virtue in letting the different parts of the state have representation that truly represents the region's constituents, and isn't merely a reflection of majority rule.

There are only two possible ways to split a State like Utah into 4 pieces with equal population. We can do what Nevada does and have one geographically small wholly urban district and then several urban/rural districts that are much larger geographically. Or, we can have 4 districts that are all about the same size geographically with each being an urban-rural mix.

Which is the better solution? There is the tough question.

I'm sure many democrats in SLC and Park City would love to be part of a solidly democrat district. I'm not sure how democrats in Price would feel about being left in a completely uncompetitive district or how residents in the rest of SLCo might feel about sharing their representatives with rural interests while urban democrats get a representative with no rural concerns.

As evensteven suggests, I too encourage those interested in this process to try out the software for themselves. See if you can create 4 districts that are really "fair". Ask your friends, co-workers, or family members who do not share your political affiliations if they think your districts are fair.

"Call it a republic if your must, but the spirit of America cries out for democracy."

No, the founding fathers very specifically rejected a democracy, which would have been as possible to implement in the young nation as it had been in Rome or Switzerland. It was not merely distance to travel or lack of easy communication that caused the founding fathers and framers to reject democracy. Indeed, for any who are a political minority in Utah, the idea of a pure democracy--where a simple majority rules without regard to minority rights--should be quite troubling.

A basic reason for many of the problems in this nation is our movement away from a republic and toward a democracy with the 17th amendment, various one-man-one-vote rulings that undermine the importance of geographic representation, "faithless elector" laws that make presidential electors mere automatons, and incesent polling of what an ill- and un-informed populace want rather than real leadership.

Geography matters as you will discover should your neighborhood ever be slated to be condemned to build a new freeway, or to play host to a new sewage treatment plant or jail.

The focus on 3 or 4 congressional districts often masks a very inconvenient, uncomfortable truth. Utah is overwhelmingly Republican at this time. And that is not because 100+ legislative districts have been gerrymandered.

It is overwhelmingly republican because that is how the vast majority of our voters tend to vote. Not that long ago, we tended to vote democrat more often than republican. But the democrat party stopped appealing to most Utahns while the GOP moved to support the values of most Utahns.

Many a democrat will argue that Utahns "should" embrace the democrat party because the democrat party better represents some local value or another. But we have a secret ballot, adults vote according to their own conscious, and they choose overwhelmingly to vote GOP rather than democrat.

Our current legislature is over 76% GOP. And even Pignanelli admits this number is going to go up due to growth in the GOP population vs growth in the Democrat population. So for Democrats to get 1 safe seat out of 4 (25%) would be for them to be over-represented in Utah's congressional delegation.

We should expect 1 or 2 competitive seats, and 2 or 3 GOP seats.

re: RanchHand,

If you think that the State is controlled by the Church, then make your case. Show some evidence. Give us the times and places where elected officials met with Church authorities and received direction from those Church authorities. Give us names.

Anyone can spread rumors and many have. In America, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Those accused have the right to face their accusers. If the law has been broken, then take them to court, look them in the eye and make your case.

Did you pay close attention to your own quote: "The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The burden of proof is on you.