2011 Utah Legislative Preview 

On Jan. 24, the 59th general session of the Utah Legislature begins. But when it adjourns, how will it be remembered? As the generic 59th session, or as one that activists, lawmakers, corporate lobbyists and citizen lobbyists will remember as the Battle for the Hill? While each session brings its share of activism and upset, this year, one issue is drawing ire like no other: immigration. As of press time, legislators have lined up more than a dozen bills to tackle the immigration problem.

From Orem Republican Rep. Stephen Sandstrom’s aggressive enforcement bill to Salt Lake City Democratic Sen. Luz Robles’ undocumented workers database, Utah legislators are determined to fix the immigration problem—or at least make some noise about it to their constituents.

This feature is for those who rage against the machine, and for those who may just need a little gentle coaxing to shelve their winter apathy and head to the Hill. Once there, you’ll be armed with this two-part introduction to the 2011 Legislature. First, there’s a primer on the session’s issues. An immigration-bill roundup identifies the hot buttons of 2011, but don’t overlook bills that might slip by in all the smoke and mirrors of immigration: oil refinery tax giveaways, a pilot program for community-based mental health treatment and a don’t-call-it-a-tax-hike, sales food-tax hike.

Once you are familiar with the issues, you can condition your righteous indignation and learn how to bring pressure to bear on the Hill. Learn about three new activist groups and get tips on how to follow bills and build grass-roots organizations.

Immigration Roundup
This session, more than a dozen immigration-solution bills are waiting to be introduced as Utah solutions to the nation’s immigration conundrum. How many will make it through to committee and House and Senate floors remains to be seen, but one thing is clear—they can’t all become law. The four most prominent bill proposals are listed below:

Sandstrom: Arizona-lite or Utah Solution?
Front and center of Utah’s push for an immigration solution is Rep. Sandstrom’s Immigration Enforcement Act, which gives local law enforcement the power to detain any person suspected of being in the country illegally and requires immigrants to carry documentation proving citizenship.

While Sandstrom patterned the bill after Arizona’s controversial Senate Bill 1070, he removed more legally tenuous components from the Arizona bill, like restrictions against immigrants congregating in certain locations. He also codified in the bill that racial profiling would be prohibited—a hollow reassurance, since the bill failed to establish any penalty for officers who racially profile individuals in the service of the law.

Sandstrom will have to reconcile the fact that his bill also runs afoul of the Legislature’s previous adoption of driving-privilege cards for undocumented immigrants, since Sandstrom has indicated that the possession of such a card could be considered proof of undocumented status, providing law enforcement with grounds to detain such drivers.

Likely to pass? Yes, with compromises regarding the driver’s privilege card conflict; perhaps even a delay for implementation until Arizona’s legal battles are resolved.

Luz Robles: Waiver & Assimilation
Robles has, with the help of conservative think tank the Sutherland Institute, crafted a bill that would give a waiver to undocumented workers, safeguarding them against deportation, while not technically changing their legal status. Workers would pay into the system and have to prove English proficiency or sign up for English language classes as well as pass a criminal background check.

While the bill is well-intentioned in attempting to bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, there’s a question as to its feasibility.

While Sandstrom’s bill would affect changes that could potentially prompt legal action by the U.S. Justice Department—Arizona’s bill is still embroiled in legal action—Robles’ bill could not be implemented until Gov. Gary Herbert successfully negotiated with one or more federal agencies for waivers for the undocumented workers. Quite simply, the feds could say “thanks, but no thanks.”

Likely to pass? No, unless practical considerations about the cost of implementation and how to provide language classes are addressed.

Sen. Howard Stephenson: Guest Workers & Bounty Hunters
Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, is not the only Republican in the Legislature to advance a more “market forces”-oriented approach to dealing with undocumented immigrants. His bill, while still in process, would allow undocumented immigrants to be sponsored by employers in an immigration program reminiscent of the Bracero programs of the 1940s and mid-50s.

But for Stephenson, the mechanism that ensures immigrants work where they’re supposed to and return to their home country as agreed should not be some overworked Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent—it should be a bounty hunter.

“If you require [a] guest worker to buy a surety bond at his expense or at the expense of his employer, who would then have a bounty hunter keep track of his whereabouts, that works,” Stephenson told an immigration forum in September. “With the surety bond, every legal guest worker is in charge of his own policing.”

Likely to pass? A 50-50 chance, depending on cost of implementation

Carl Wimmer: Repeal In-State Tuition for Children of Undocumented Immigrants
With the federal DREAM Act killed, Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, decided Utah might as well follow the fed’s lead in denying opportunities for children of undocumented immigrants and has proposed legislation to repeal the in-state college tuition currently offered to Utah students who have gone to a Utah high school for three years and whose parents are undocumented immigrants.

“It’s fundamentally unfair that an American-born citizen from Evanston, Wyo., would have to pay more to go the University of Utah than an illegal immigrant,” Wimmer told The Salt Lake Tribune in a Dec. 22 article. “It’s fundamentally flawed.”

For Antonella Packard, Utah director of the conservative Latino advocacy group Somos Republicans, however, it’s Wimmer’s logic that is flawed.

“Somebody who hasn’t lived in our state hasn’t contributed to our economy,” she says pointing out that undocumented students or families who meet the current requirements would already have contributed sales and property taxes to the local economy, more so than a student from out of state.

“I think [Wimmer] is looking at the 4th Congressional seat—and he’s made no bones about it,” Packard says. “In order to ingratiate himself, he is going after kids who are graduating and getting ready for college.”

Likely to pass? It’s too close to call. Legislators have attempted to repeal in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants every year since 2007, each year failing by a narrow margin, but this year the momentum may be there for repeal.

Other Bills to Watch
When legislators and activists aren’t shouting about immigration, there are a whole slew of bills coming through the pipe this session. Here’s a look at some of the lesser-known bills, including a few pieces of comeback legislation whose sponsors are hoping the second or third time is the charm for passage.

Adams: The Don’t Call It a Tax, Sales-Tax Hike
There is an art in Utah politics that avoids using unpopular terminology such as the word “tax.” Sen. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, has taken the creative approach that, rather than propose a new tax, he would “restore” an old tax—like a craftsman renovating antique furniture.

By restoring the pre-2006, 1 percent sales tax on food, Adams’ bill puts more into education funding. Its an extra scoop of sugar to help taxpayers swallow the proposed tax “restoration,” Adams’ bill will also decrease property taxes for homeowners.

“It’s a semantic cop-out,” says Linda Hilton, director of the Coalition of Religious Communities at Crossroads Urban Center, a Salt Lake City low-income advocacy group. Hilton sees the tax as a direct attack on Utah’s most economically vulnerable citizens who spend more of their disposable income on food than wealthier Utahns. “If you’re a renter, you’re toast,” Hilton says, adding that renters are not as likely to see the lowered property taxes passed on to them.

The idea of more money for education may gain traction in the Legislature, but without the support of the Utah Education Association. UEA spokesman Mike Kelly says the UEA would not support the bill. “My understanding is this [bill] is revenue neutral,” Kelly says. “It would just transfer what is currently being collected in property tax to sales tax. We’d be switching from a more stable funding source to a more volatile funding source, which I don’t think we would support.”

Hilton’s optimistic that Adams’ fellow legislators will simply see the bill for what it is—a tax.

“A restoration of an old tax is a tax,” Hilton says. “Paying more is just that, I don’t care what you call it.”

Stephenson: Oil Refinery Bailout
Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, head of the Utah Taxpayers Association and host of the conservative Red Meat Radio program, thinks Utah refineries deserve a sales-tax break that would reduce the general fund by $3 million to $5 million. While not a draft bill yet, on Nov. 17, 2010, Stephenson circulated a letter to the Interim Tax & Revenue Committee that outlined the economic perks of Utah’s refinery industry that had in 2007 employed 900 individuals, directly providing them with a $70 million annual payroll.

Stephenson’s letter noted refineries having to pay sales, property and severance taxes for oil extracted from the ground. While he wrote they do receive exemptions for certain machinery purchases that have usefulness extending beyond three years, he argues they still pay sales taxes on other “business-input charges.” Thus, they deserve to be exempted from sales and use tax on consumables and for machinery that has less than a three-year useful life in order to be “more competitive and to encourage additional investment in Utah.”

Spackman: Community Mental Health
When Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay, floated her bill for a community mental-health pilot project in the 2010 Legislature, the idea of funding mental-health service providers to visit clients in their community was shocking to some of her House colleagues.

“I remember Rep. Carl Wimmer got up and asked, ‘Don’t psychiatrists make house calls now?’” Moss recalls. “He then said, ‘Well, this sounds like another government program to me.’”

For Moss, it was clear that the idea wasn’t ready yet—that’s why she’s hoping the third time will be the charm as she presents again the pilot-program proposal in the 2011 Legislature.

The model is one that would provide people coming out of incarceration in institutions who have mental-health issues with a special team of professionals who can come to their homes to assist with their needs.

“These are people who have trouble making doctor appointments and keeping up with their paperwork,” Moss says. Each team would include as many as a half-dozen professionals that may include a psychiatrist, social worker and job counselor, among others.

“With community-based treatment and a team that is available 24/7, [clients] can be stable, they can live at home,” Moss says. In previous attempts, the bill failed because of its $800,000 fiscal note. Moss says, however, that the populations that suffer mental-health problems and often are cycled in and out of jail are also likely to be eligible for Medicaid—which could significantly offset the cost to the state. One facility, Wasatch Mental Health in Utah County, has already volunteered to be the pilot facility.

Ultimately, Moss’ best bet for the passage is to convince her colleagues on the Hill not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish by failing to invest in community health and just expecting jails and prisons to remain Utah’s defacto mental institutions, she says, citing estimates she’s seen that the cost of community health per client may be $10,000-$15,000 per year, compared to roughly $40,000 to house offenders in corrections facilities.

“Community-based treatment may be expensive,” Moss says. “But consider the alternative.”

Activists to Know About
Peaceful Uprising
There’s nothing like shutting down a power plant together to break the ice and get to know your fellow rabble-rousers. “The group coagulated after the conference,” says Ashley Anderson of Peaceful Uprising, speaking of a November 2009 activist conference he attended where conference-goers, as a side trip, blocked the fire exits in a coal-fired power plant to shut it down for the day. It was the kind of getting-to-know-you act of civil disobedience that bonds protesters, taking them from merely “likeminded” to brothers and sisters in arms for a cause.

After the conference, Anderson and others formed Peaceful Uprising. The group has gained notoriety for endeavors such as sparking the 2010 Citizen’s Candidate initiative that held auditions to seek a liberal primary challenger to U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

While the Uprising will be a presence on the Hill—lobbying on behalf of climate issues, immigration and other progressive ideals—Anderson says the group avoids traditional meet-and-greets with legislators and seeks more unusual ways of influencing legislators.

In the 2010 session, Anderson and Peaceful Uprising cohorts staged a phony press release of a group advocating a Hitler-esque “final solution” to Utah’s LGBT population to satirize the issue. Similarly, in November, the group held a mock trial on behalf of climate activist Tim DeChristopher. The street-theater event gave organizers the chance to publicize the legal arguments DeChristopher says he has been denied making in federal court—namely, that his disruption of a 2008 oil lease auction in Salt Lake City was an act of self-defense rather than willful sabotage. Anderson hints that similar events will take place this session but, like a magician guarding his secrets, is not giving them away just yet. “There’s space on the climate and social-justice frontier for more creative and subversive [lobbying],” Anderson says. “We fill in that idea of it.”

United for Social Justice
For Sam Rangel with United for Social Justice, democracy is just about showing up. As a student, he went to the Capitol to hear Sen. Robles propose counter-legislation to Sandstrom’s enforcement-heavy immigration bill. Rangel showed up, met people and, within a matter of weeks, was an organizing member of United for Social Justice, whose imperative is to lobby on behalf of compassion in the immigration debate as well as to work to directly serve underrepresented communities. Though Rangel and USJ don’t support a state solution to the immigration issue, he knows legislators are hungry to make one and is grateful the issue is at least creating awareness.

“Personally, I’m thankful this issue has come out. Otherwise, people would still be living in the shadows,” Rangel says, adding that the call for a state solution is “pure political posturing.”

Rangel stands by the call for compassion and a federal solution to the immigration issue, counting friends in the undocumented community and having seen in business consultations how so-called get-tough enforcement actions have affected the local community. During his work, Rangel consulted with a warehouse that manufactured heaters and lost most of its workforce in an immigration sweep. “They’re really hurting now. They’ve got double the employees and half the productivity.”

Rangel feels that awareness about the issue will ultimately lend itself to educating the public about the greater burdens on taxpayers: politicians tied to special interests. “These are the same people who bankrupted our country by getting into bed with corporations and letting them run the country,” Rangel says. “People are going to realize that. It’s our biggest advantage.”

United for Social Justice works hard providing education to immigrant populations to let them know their rights by providing workshops on civil rights in community churches and doing outreach at public events like Mexican concerts.

The outreach may be more rewarding than challenging critics on the other side of the issue, but Rangel tries to see the bigger picture when debating people on immigration.

“Once you agree to disagree, you open the door to more dialogue,” Rangel says.

Revolutionary Students Union
Sometimes, a jaunt to the other side of the world can help one appreciate that the best place to do good is back home. It worked for Batman in 2005’s Batman Begins, and it also worked for Greg Lucero when he took an excursion to Nepal in the summer of 2008 to visit Maoist guerrillas who had recently been ejected from the government.

“They said the best thing anyone could do for them was come make changes here” in the United States, Lucero says “because it’s American imperialism that threatens revolutions abroad.” While Lucero was heavily invested in documenting the Nepalese resistance against an authoritarian king, he also realized Utah County was ripe for its own insurgency.

In the fall of 2008, Lucero and “comrade” Chris Manor formed the Revolutionary Students Union at Utah Valley University, a club that mixes discussions of revolutionary history and theory and then applies those teachings to the real world. Beyond advocating progressive stances on issues like immigration, Lucero says the organization is primarily its own student union.

“We believe that education is an absolute right guaranteed to everyone,” Lucero says. “So we’re not only fighting budget cuts [to higher education] but fighting for expanded funding.” The group has been involved in a letter campaign to the Utah State Board of Regents advocating for more state funding for UVU, which they say currently receives the least amount of state funding for all state universities.

While RSU is not against lobbying, it prefers to focus on making noise versus polite lobbying.

“Insurgent politics isn’t about appealing to Republicans, Democrats or electoral parties in general,” Lucero says. “We prefer protest and direct confrontation. No matter how many calls these politicians get, they just don’t care, so we have to find other ways to put their feet to the fire.”

RSU is planning protests and rallies this legislative session designed to get lawmakers’ attention. But for Lucero, a softer approach is better with average Utahns,

“This sounds pretty banal, but a lot [of what we do] is conversation,” Lucero says. “We’re in Utah County, so there are a lot of conservative Mormon students who come to talk because maybe they’re uncomfortable about the war or immigration. They might say, ‘I see these immigrants as my brothers and sisters,’ and we tell them not only should you see them as your brothers and sisters, but you should do something about it.”

Move Into Action
So, you’re done with just gritting your teeth and boring your cats and co-workers with your armchair political rants. When you are finally ready to hit the Hill and do the real thing, you’d best review the basics of citizen lobbying.

Basic Training:
For a comprehensive how-to guide on raging against the sausage-grinding machine, check out City Weekly’s 2010 citizen lobbying issue, "Storm the Hill." Here’s a quick refresher.

Lobby your Legislator: You can bend the ear of any lawmaker, but you’ll have more buy-in if the legislator actually represents you. Find your legislator through your county clerks (Elections.Utah.Gov/CountyClerks.html).

Make it Short & Sweet: Look for the sergeants-at-arms—elderly folks in green and navy sport coats—who will give you a slip to request an audience with a representative. Know what your legislator looks like so you can find him or her (probably him) when they come out. Remember, you only have a few minutes. So, introduce yourself, explain your concern with a specific bill and ask the legislator’s opinion. Be nice and be concise! Hear them out and give them any materials you might have, thank them for their time and move on to the next target.

Testify at Committee: Check the Legislature’s Website Le.Utah.Gov to verify when a committee is meeting. Check 24 hours before, in case it gets cancelled. Arrive early to ask staff about getting your name on the docket to comment. When commenting, again keep it short and sweet (you’re likely only allowed a few minutes to speak) and keep it nice and concise. Introduce yourself and who you represent, give specific concerns about specific bills, address legislators by their title and thank them for their time.

Long-Distance Lobbying
In this digital age, citizens don’t need to go to the Capitol itself to follow legislation and/or speak to their legislators.

To follow a bill you’re interested in, the Legislature’s Website has some convenient tools: Under the “bills” tab on the main page, click on the “tracking service” link. You’ll find a page where you can create your own master list of up to 150 bills you want to follow. You can then scan the page and check the status of your bills as they move through the system. By checking the links under the “Quick Links” heading on the Legislature’s home page, you can look at calendars to see when a bill is set to be debated and listen to live House and Senate floor debates.

Scroll over the “Legislators” menu on the main page and click on the House or Senate roster to get legislators’ contact information. E-mail or phone them to voice your praise, criticism or angry tirades. See%uFFFD video about how to navigate the Legislature Website at the beginning of this article.

Look Big
If you’re passionate enough to lobby your representative, consider the value in acting as a representative yourself. Speaking on behalf of your neighbors or co-workers, for example, lets lawmakers know your concerns aren’t isolated.

“Getting people to stand together is really powerful,” says Glenna Tibbetts, a founder of new grass-roots group Utah Condo Owners Coalition of Utah. In the fall of 2010, Tibbetts rallied condo owners across the city to meet in support of legislation that would help condo owners better mediate disputes with their condo boards. “The more people we add to our group from outside our complex is what is giving our group strength,” she says.

Tibbetts put flyers on street signs and in coffee shops near condos in the city until she had generated interest, and then she set up meetings in public libraries since the rooms could be reserved for free. Once her Website was set up, her group had a base of operations to lobby in the 2011 legislature and beyond for better regulation of condo boards.

“The Website really developed the structure of [the coalition].” Tibbetts says. “So that regardless of what happens [this session], the organization will continue until we feel like government has a functioning oversight. And then, we’ll go beyond that to oversee the oversight.”