Re: one old man | 11:52 a.m. Oct. 24, 2011 "Don't all citizens of
Utah have the right to ask questions and receive answers?"As a
school teacher you should know that you have a 1st Amendment right to SAY
anything you want within reason. (You can't yell "fire" in a theater
and you can't joke about bombs at the airport.) But no, you don't have any
"right" to receive responses from Jason Chaffetz or anybody else.
You're going to have to get used to being ignored by Mr. Chaffetz for a long
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just as "fairness" is in the
political eye of the beholder when it comes to re-districting. Relax this will
be a non-issue before the end of the year.
No Rifleman, no one in Chafetz's office ever saw my email. It was automatically
rejected by his computer system because my zip code indicated I was out of his
district.You need to answer the simple question: How can a
"Representative" live outside the district he "represents"
if other citizens have no right to question him no matter what district we live
in? Don't all citizens of Utah have the right to ask questions and receive
answers?I could understand this response if I had been writing from
southwestern Alabama, but last time I checked, I'm still in Utah.
Fair and open?? Kinda like Fair and balanced reporting from fox news. Its just a
sound bite. Closed door practices from the GOP legislaters gerrymandering
districts, I hope the voters make them pay but we all know this is a pretty red
state. Between the caucus system and this process the crooks in the GOP have a
stranglehold on pollitics in the state. Get off your duffs Utahn's and show
these people we arent going to take it any more.
"Office-holders expend resources and effort to be elected, and they deserve
(and the constituents they serve are entitled) to have incumbency a
consideration when redrawing boundaries."Where are the
Occupiers when you need them? Surely, they would protest such an arrangement.
And, the rest of us should, also. It simply isn't a good thing to encourage
public offices to be bought and sold. Our redistricting should not endorse such
a practice, but instead seek to draw the lines just to suit the public.To the victors go the spoils? And, we say they are entitled to lay aside the
betterment of the public so they can draw the lines for the betterment of
themselves, the politicians? No, I don't think we need to grant them such a
thing. They are elected to serve us, not themselves.
Re: one old man | 3:36 p.m. Oct. 23, 2011 Rob Bishop is the
congressional representative for Utah's 1st District which includes Ogden.
Perhaps Mr. Chafetz' staff sensed that your e-mail was frivolous and rightfully
determined not to waste his time responding to it.
The Tribune reported that Becky Lockhart stated that the only request for
special consideration in drawing new boundaries came from Jason Chafetz who
asked that his district lines be drawn so that he will actually live in the
district he is supposed to represent. It seems it's not necessary for a
representative to actually live in their district.But this morning,
when I tried to send an email to ask Chafetz a question, it was rejected. Why?
Because I don't live in the Third District.Do I smell a bit of
Republican hypocrisy here? Sort of smells like the elephant enclosure at Hogle
Zoo.I also don't believe Lockhart, either.
"Redistricting" - "Fair" - "Open" - all oxymorons
that do not belong in the same sentence anywhere in America. If your party wins
the election in the year the census is taken you are free to draw the boundaries
anyway you choose. It's the consequence of election victory. The pretense that
it's going to be any of those oxymorons is simply stating facts not in evidence
anytime, anywhere, anyway.
There is plenty of blame to go around about the redistricting process. Of course
you can say it was open because of all the statewide meetings. You can also say
it was rigged because of all the closed caucus meetings. You can say it's fair
because districts are "equal" in their numbers and political
composition. You can also say they were rigged because they divided communities
along arbitrary lines. I think the bottom line to whatever you say about the
process, it would be much harder to criticize a non-partisan commission.
I always thought public office was a public service. That one served because
they wanted to contribute to the betterment of all. I didn't realize that they
deserved the right to incumbency, after expending resources (in the words of Mr.
Pignanelli). Maybe this the root of our problems. When are we going to ever
revisit term limits, not only locally but nationally? Get away from this sense
of entitlement and get back to a sense of service.