Comments about ‘Utah Democrats sue for redistricting records’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 27 2012 10:13 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Abe Sarvis
Cedar City, UT

If "it took 55 employees a combined 506 hours to compile the records" then maybe we need to figure out why there are so many records, and why they were so difficult to compile. Why was the process subject to so much obfuscation? Shouldn't it be much clearer from the start?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

This is what happening in a ONE-Party politican system.

Gerrymandering and Totalitarianism.

viva la Utah-liban

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

"it took 55 employees a combined 506 hours to compile the records" apparently tis is Utah republicans Idea of a smaller government.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

I think that this has gone beyond what the records may or may not contain. When the GOP offers to pay for the records, and they refuse the offer, that shows that they are out for blood.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Something really "strange" is going on here.

If the Republican Party is willing to pay for the records to be provided to the Democrats, then why are they pressing forward with a suit to obtain the records?

I would suggest the DNews needs to "press" Mr. Dabakis for more information on why the Democrats will not take up the offer of the GOP to pay for the records so they can have them without resorting to a Court fight with the State of Utah.

That Court fight will certainly cost the Democrats much more than the $9,000 the State is asking for the records.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@redshirt and VST

did either of you ever stop to think that maybe access to public records without excessive cost goes beyond this one case where the GOP is willing to front the money to make it go away? Did you stop to ask yourself why the GOP is willing to pay for this after being threatened with lawsuits?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Closed door Republican gerrymandering of the voting Districts...

Chicago-style politics, with a Latter-Day Republican spin on it.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Tolstoy" I did consider why the GOP would pay after being threatened. They think that the records contain nothing incriminating.

You need to think about what this means to the state if the Democrats succeed. You now open the door to anybody on a fishing trip looking to find dirt. Reporters, and political opponents will have an easier time getting large chunks of information without it costing them a dime. This will cost the state a lot of time and resources.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Tolstoy,

So, are the Democrats suing the State or the GOP? If they are suing the State, why is the GOP being dragged into this? Who determined that the cost is excessive?

You mentioned a "threatened" lawsuit against the GOP by the Democrats as a motive for the GOP's offer to pay the $9K for the Democrats. What threatened lawsuit and on what legal basis for that threatened lawsuit?

VST
Bountiful, UT

@LDS Liberal,

"Closed-door gerrymandering of the districts?"

Is that what this is all about (aka, the supposedly threatened lawsuit against the GOP)?

If that is what this all about, then I have some bad news for the Mr. Dabakis and his Democrats – the threatened lawsuit would not even get out of U.S. District Court.

Here is why. Gerrymandering districts for political advantage is NOT constitutionally or legally prohibited. Political gerrymandering has already been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, and subsequently dismissed by that same Court in 2004 [Vieth v. Jubelirer]. In that decision, the Court deemed that political gerrymandering is a political issue and should be addressed by Congress or the respective State legislatures. In other words, it is not a legal issue.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@redshirt
think about what you just said, you are saying peoples access to public records should be discouraged because they may find wrong doing by our elected officials. does that really make sense.

@vor
where did I get the idea that the democrats where suing, from the article.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Tolstoy" you don't understand the problem. Think of it this way. Would you support a policy that made it so that any time a company sent you an advertisement you had to pay for the advertisement? All so that the businesses could go fishing to entice you to their stores?

That is exactly what is going on here. If you give people unlimited access to government records, it will cost the government a lot of money to process the requests and do their jobs. Who is going to pay for that? Money doesn't grow on trees.

Plus, I don't think that you have read the Utah law regarding obtaining records. Individuas (people) can get the information for free under certain conditions. So, if you suspect wrong doing, you can get those records for free.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@redshirt
I understand perfectly well what is going on we are not talking about some private corporation trying to get access to private citizens information we are talking about restricting access to public documents that where generated by our public officials and people right to examine those documents. You are right money does not grow on trees and that is exactly why access to the records needs to be accessible to make sure our public officials are being honest with our money.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Tolstoy" the information is not restricted in any way. You can go and ask for the same records that the Democrats obtained, you can receive the records. The Democrats do not want to pay for the time required to collect the data. The records are accessable, the problem is the democrats don't want to play by the rules, they want something for free.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments