Ronald Reagan used to help make case for Better Boundaries ballot proposition

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • D Van Duker Syracuse, UT
    Oct. 3, 2018 12:01 p.m.

    Notably left out of the article was obscure fact that Ronald Reagan was specifically addressing the gross political gerrymandering of CALIFORNIA. The Democrat majority in California seems to like THEIR partisan-drawn boarders just fine; and, regularly reminds complaining Republican voters that: "To the winner go the spoils."

    I can't help but notice that the Democrat interest and demands for "equality," "fairness," and "impartiality," only apply...when Democrats lack the needed majority to adjust political boundaries that would be partisan...but in THEIR favor.

    This isn't about "equality," "fairness," and "impartiality." It is all about Democrats attempting to gain a political advantage while a significant political minority in Utah--which THEY would NEVER CONSIDER if the political fortunes were reversed. If anyone wants to argue to the contrary...explain the Congressional districting in California...where the Democrats enjoy the majority status...and Democrats control the processes for establishing political boundaries.

    I know, I know..."but, that's different." Sure, it's "different;" but, only because of who is running the legislature.

  • majmajor Layton, UT
    Oct. 3, 2018 10:08 a.m.

    I am a conservative Republican that will never vote for Trump, nor any Republican or Democrat that acts like him. That includes either Clinton.

    With the above said, I see real political power in Utah having a member of both parties in Congress. It gives Utah the power to actually influence the power brokers in congress within both parties.

    At least this way, Utah will at least have a say in the next Presidential Declaration that impacts Utah's Federal lands. There may also be more moderation of other's extreme interests that directly effect Utah.

    It also allows a Utah moderating voice when the Republican President acts like Trump. Unlike the lovefest/apologists the current delegation seems to share, and Trump enjoys

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 3, 2018 9:54 a.m.

    Some politicians will back this for "fairness" and as a way of shifting blame for the results to an unelected commission. We all know that the commission will be filled with hyper-partisans from both sides and the results will be perceived by some people as "unfair" no matter who draws the lines.

    Gerrymandering is not really a problem in Utah, and the ballot initiative scheme to "fix it" is not an improvement.

    Vote "no" on this scheme. At least when the Legislature draws the lines you know who is doing t and have some control over them at the ballot box. With an unelected commission the political insiders who appoint them have all the control.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Oct. 3, 2018 8:01 a.m.

    Reagan was talking about Gerrymandering by Democrats, which at that time was very prevalent. At the time most state legislatures were run by Democrats who had fixed the boundaries to their liking to keep them in power.

    Impartial, you are incorrect that he GOP has had a lock on this state for over a century.

    In the 1964 Election, the Democrats were the majority in both houses of the legislature and had been since 1958. Rampton became the Governor.

    Starting in 68 was when that started to turn. And Rampton was still the Governor.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 3, 2018 6:06 a.m.

    " . . . were also used because for his popularity in Utah." I believe the word you wanted there was "of," not "for."

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Oct. 2, 2018 9:24 p.m.

    @ a_voice_of_reason - Woods Cross, UT

    Perfectly stated - thank you.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 7:02 p.m.

    I'm a Republican and generally in favor of the idea behind this proposal. However, there are other states controlled by Democrats (as well as other states controlled by Republicans) that also Gerrymander their congressional districts. I would favor Utah abandoning the practice as the entire nation does the same thing.

  • dansimp Layton, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 6:09 p.m.

    NoNamesAccepted says that we need to protect the rural minority. As of the 2010 census, the breakdown of Utah was approximately 90.6% urban and 9.4% rural. While I think it is important for all people to have a voice, the idea that you need all 4 representatives answering to less than 10% of the people is more than a little ridiculous. If it is vital that all 4 answer to less than 10%, wouldn't it be even more important for even 1 of the 4 to answer to 25-35% of the population as far as political ideology? The bigger problem (and it isn't party specific, its just that the GOP was so much more successful at it back around 2010), is any party's attempt to silence the voice of a minority group in an effort to gain power. Power, politically, should be fought for in the marketplace of ideas. If you can convince people to vote for you (Like Matheson did for years, even with a large number of Republicans in his district), then you get the power. Any time that your effort is to silence someone, rather than convince them, you should know what you are doing is wrong.

  • CrazyUT Ogden, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 6:07 p.m.

    Gerrymandering is extremely un-democratic. The practice is a stain on our nation.

  • radicalmoderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 5:57 p.m.

    The most idiotic comments from elected officials come from safe seats. We will get better governance, more common sense and more accountability when we create as few safe districts as possible. Competition makes for better products, service and companies. Why not apply the same standard to politics?

  • Dart Thrower Ogden, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 3:29 p.m.

    NoNames, why do we need to protect "the voice of the minority that is rural residents"? How about protecting the voice of the Democrats who represent 40% of the population, but have zero representation in Washington? The hub and spoke design of the current congressional districts was not designed to protect the rural areas, it was designed to dilute the metro areas by adding in the rural districts. The fact that all four Congresspeople and both Senators are Republicans shows that it is very effective. A true Gerrymander.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 2:56 p.m.

    @a_voice_of_reason: "Just look at the map for the districts - there is no logical reason for a map like that. It's plainly absurd."

    The reason for the boundaries of the 4 CDs is so logical that Utah was one of a tiny number of States where there were no federal lawsuits over our congressional boundaries. The boundaries assure that all 4 congressmen in Utah have a part of their districts that are rural.

    This helps protect the voice of the minority that is rural residents. Protecting this minority in Utah is as important as protecting the minority political party. More so, I can argue to anyone who opposes the 2 party system.

    Any congressman from Utah is going to vote on and speak out on federal / Utah land issues. But Utah land issues are almost entirely rural issues. So every congressional voice and vote from Utah should have to answer to rural voters.

    With that explained....

    Why should Utah Democrats get equal power on a redistricting comission as do Utah Republicans? And if they do, why do other minority parties not get equal voice? There are only slightly more elected Democrats than they are elected Libertarians, Greens, etc.

    This is a power grab.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 2:47 p.m.

    As one who has yet to vote for a Democrat and usually votes Republican I feel justified in saying that Okerlund's statement that this is a "partisan power grab" by Democrats is absurd. The legislature's obvious gerrymandering behind closed doors to slice up the Democrats in Utah and make 4 republican districts was the power grab. Just look at the map for the districts - there is no logical reason for a map like that. It's plainly absurd.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the districts should be decided neutrally and in a reasonable, meaningful way. The districts should not be forced to create a perfect reflection of the state's overall political breakdown, but you would expect that to be the approximate outcome. Certainly it shouldn't be forced (as it has been in Utah and so many other states) to avoid the actual political breakdown of the state. Utah is approx. 25-30% democrats, centered mostly in Salt Lake and Summit counties. I would fully expect that - in general - 1 of Utah's 4 representatives would be a Democrat. I'm not saying "safe" districts should be created - I'm just saying that's what you'd expect as a typical result.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Oct. 2, 2018 1:56 p.m.

    "It's "a cleverly disguised partisan power grab," backed by Becker and other "liberal Salt Lake City Democrats," Senate Majority Leader Ralph Okerlund, R-Monroe, said in his opposition arguments in the state's voter guide."

    It's not a power grab. Mormon Republicans have had their lock on this State for more than a century. They do what they want, regardless of what constituents want. Again, it's not a power grab, it's a grass roots campaign for citizens to do the right things that Utah GOP politicians refuse to do.