Utah Legislative Platform
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Utah State Legislature
Utah State Legislature Senate Utah State Capitol Complex 320 State Capitol PO BOX 145115 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5115 (801) 538-1035 fax (801) 538-1414 House of Representatives Utah State Capitol Complex 350 State Capitol PO BOX 145030 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5030 http://le.utah.gov (801) 538-1029 fax (801) 538-1908 July 23, 2014 Thomas L. Tidwell, Chief, United States Forest Service Chief Tidwell, On July 15, 2014, the Utah Water Development Commission (Commission) met to discuss the Proposed Directive on Groundwater Resource Management issued by the U.S. Forest Service. The Commission meeting was an open and recorded meeting. Chris Iverson, Deputy Regional Forester, and Kathryn Conant, Director, Lands and Minerals, both with U.S. Forest Service Region 4, addressed the Commission on the proposed directive. In response to the explanation by the Region 4 officials, the WDC received comments from: Michael Styler, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources Steven Clyde, Clyde Snow and Sessions Kent Jones, Utah State Water Engineer Randy Parker, CEO, Utah Farm Bureau Federation John Loomis, General Manager, Snowbasin Ski Resort Ed Bowler, Chair, Washington County Water Conservancy District After the listed presentations and commission discussion, a motion was made requesting that the Commission cochairs send a letter to the U.S. Forest Service outlining the Commission's concerns and requesting the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed Directive on Groundwater Resource Management. The vote on the motion was unanimous in the affirmative with legislators from both parties and both legislative chambers in full support. Members of the Commission who are not elected legislators also supported the motion and requested that their names be added in support. -
Research Report Report Number 710, June 2012 Partisan Politics, Polarization, and Participation
Research Report Report Number 710, June 2012 Partisan Politics, Polarization, and Participation HIGHLIGHTS In the 2012 Utah Priorities Survey, respondents listed g In the 2012 Utah Priorities Survey, 52% of partisan politics as one of their top concerns for the respondents reported that they were concerned or very concerned about partisan politics, upcoming elections. This is significant not only because making it a top-ten issue for Utahns in this year’s elections. it was the first time this issue had been listed as a top-ten g The current Congress shows the highest historical level of polarization since the end of concern in this series of surveys, but also the first time it Reconstruction. was seen as a concern at all. There have been many reports g Since 1939, there has been a slow and steady decline in the number of moderates in the U.S. about the rise in partisanship and party polarization in Congress to a historic low for both chambers in 2011. national politics, and on the implications of this increase. g Utah’s voter turnout rate has been declining Partisanship can have important influences on voter turnout rates. Research indicates throughout the past several decades. Whereas Utah’s rate used to be well above the national that an increase in polarization “energizes the electorate” and increases voter turnout; average, it is now below average. high participation is indicative of a highly informed electorate where polarization is at its 1 g Research shows that the perception that an greatest. However, Utah’s voter participation rate has been declining for several decades. -
Issues in Governance Studies
Issues in Governance Studies Number 69 May 2015 The evolving politics of the Common Core By Ashley Jochim and Lesley Lavery INTRODUCTION1 n 2009, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers launched an effort to develop common standards in English and mathematics to ensure that “all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high-school prepared for college, I 2 career, and life.” By 2011, one year after the standards had officially been released, 45 states plus the District of Columbia had adopted the standards. With the support of policymakers on both sides of the political aisle and many prominent advocacy organizations, the Common Core had an air of inevitability that few reforms can tout in the contemporary political environment. By 2015, just as most states were poised Ashley Jochim is a research analyst at the to fully implement the standards, the policy Our analysis reveals that Center on Reinventing that began with such broad support and so Public Education at the opposition to the standards University of Washington little controversy appears under siege. Five shifted considerably over Bothell. states have rescinded the standards, and dozens more have introduced legislation to time, engaging Republicans reconsider, delay, or limit participation. What early on but expanding can account for the rapid shift in perceptions to include Democratic of and reactions to this policy? policymakers and their allies as implementation To understand shifting support for Common Core, we consider the political dynamics that proceeded. have unfolded in state legislatures over the Lesley Lavery is an assistant professor last four years of implementation. -
Constitution of the Puntland State of Somalia
CONSTITUTION OF THE PUNTLAND STATE OF SOMALIA December 2009 English Translation November 2011 .• Puntland State was created in 1998 through a consultative agreement among the different regions that constitute Puntland. The creation of Puntland State emerged from Somalia's failure to re-establish an inclusive national government for eight years. The people of Puntland realized they could not continue without a government. It was then decided in the constitutional conference of 1998 that Punt land would become a state that would be part of a federal Somalia. A charter was approved in that same 1998 conference and later replaced with a provisional constitution that was approved by members of the House of Representatives in 200 l. A referendum on the constitution was to have taken place in 2004, although this was not accomplished. Since it was not possible to hold a referendum on the constitution it was decided that the constitution would continue in force while undergoing review. The constitutional review process began in May 2007 and continued until June 2009. In the review process, meaningful opinions were contributed from different sectors of Puntland society, such as Somali lawyers and foreign lawyers. Therefore, the new constitution was drafted to become the law of the people of Puntland and was based on the Islamic shari'a and, at the same time, the constitution guides the system of governance, and thus brings collaboration and order among the different government institutions of the state. It is important to mention that this constitution will have an impact on the life of every Puntlander, because no nation may exist without laws, and therefore this constitution brings order among citizens and moreover entrenches their human rights and responsibilities so that they may attain social and economic development. -
The History of the Term Limit Debate in Congress
When a Popular Idea Meets Congress: The History of the Term Limit Debate in Congress John David Rausch, jr, West Texas A&M University abstract: This paper examines the history of the term limit debate in the United States from the days of the Articles of Confedera- tion through the 1990s. The research finds that the realities of the legislative process provide infertile ground for enacting congressional term limits. Advocates of term limits serving in Congress have not had the resources to overcome the obstacles presented by the legisla- tive process. The findings contradict the conventional wisdom that Congress responds quickly to popular ideas that sweep the nation. The legislative term limit movement emerged as a signifi- 1784, pp. 98–99). The Committee found Samuel Osgood cant political phenomenon in the early 1990s. Term limi- of Massachusetts ineligible for service since he had served tation, however, was far from a new idea (see Petracca, three years after the ratification of the Articles. Osgood 1992). In fact, the idea of placing limits on the amount of withdrew from the House (Burnett, 1964). Other del- time an elected official spends in office has been debated egates were investigated, primarily for serving beyond the since before the framing of the Constitution of the United one year for which they had been elected. Some contro- States. The novelty of the Oklahoma term limit effort in versy ensued over the exact date of election for the del- 1990 was that it was successful and that it involved the egates from Rhode Island, and they refused to vacate their mass electorate using the citizen initiative process. -
Access to Justice in Environmental Matters: Overview of the Convention Implementation
AC/TF.AJ-8/Inf.3 Task Force on Access to Justice Eighth meeting Geneva, 15-17 June 2015 Item 3 of the provisional agenda Substantive issue ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS: OVERVIEW OF THE CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION Background paper1 This background paper was prepared on the basis of the synthesis report submitted to the fifth session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention (30 June – 1 July 2015, Maastricht, the Netherlands), relevant findings and reports of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (hereinafter – the Committee) from the previous intersessional period up to now (2011-2015)2. The document outlines systemic issues with regard to access to justice relevant to the work of the Task Force. Delegates are invited to consult this document in advance of the meeting in order to gain an overview of the status the implementation of article 9 of the Aarhus Convention and to discuss further needs to be addressed under auspices of the Task Force. 1 The document was not formally edited. 2 Available from http://www.unece.org/env/pp/cc.html AC/TF.AJ-8/Inf.3 Contents Page I. Information from the Synthesis Report presented to the Meeting of the Parties at its fifth session .......... 3 1. Article 9 - General provisions ............................................................................................................... 3 2. Ensuring access to a review procedure (article 9, paragraph 1) ............................................................ 3 3. Challenging decisions, acts or omissions not complying with article 6 provisions (article 9, paragraph 2) 4 4. Challenging acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities that contravene environmental legislation (article 9, paragraph 3) ........................................................................................ -
Bulletin No. 13-03 Structure and Operations of the Nevada Legislature
Structure and Operations of the Nevada Legislature Bulletin No. 13-03 Legislative Counsel Bureau January 2013 STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS OF THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE BULLETIN NO. 13-03 JANUARY 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary of Recommendation ............................................................................. iii Report to the 77th Session of the Nevada Legislature by the Legislative Commission’s Committee to Study the Structure and Operations of the Nevada Legislature ........................... 1 I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 II. Background…… ...................................................................................... 2 A. Previous Studies of the Nevada Legislature ................................................ 2 1. Prospect for Greatness (1974), Citizens Conference on State Legislatures ....... 2 2. Blue Ribbon Commission on Legislative Process (1988), Bulletin No. 89-7 ..... 3 B. Structure and Operations of Other State Legislatures ..................................... 4 III. Review of Major Issues and Committee Activities ............................................. 5 A. Sessions of the Legislature ..................................................................... 5 1. Annual Sessions ............................................................................. 5 2. Limited Sessions ............................................................................ 6 a. Limited scope sessions ................................................................ -
2020 Election Recap
2020 Election Recap Below NACCHO summarizes election results and changes expected for 2021. Democrats will continue to lead the House of Representatives…but with a smaller majority. This means that many of the key committees for public health will continue to be chaired by the same members, with notable exceptions of the Appropriations Committee, where Chair Nita Lowey (D-NY) did not run for reelection; the Agriculture Committee, which has some jurisdiction around food safety and nutrition, whose Chair, Colin Peterson (D-MN) lost, as well as the Ranking Member for the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Greg Walden, (R-OR) who did not run for reelection. After the 117th Congress convenes in January, internal leadership elections will determine who heads these and other committees. The following new Representatives and Senators are confirmed as of January 7. House of Representatives Note: All House of Representative seats were up for re-election. We list only those where a new member will be coming to Congress below. AL-1: Republican Jerry Carl beat Democrat James Averhart (open seat) Carl has served a member of the Mobile County Commission since 2012. He lists veterans’ health care and border security as policy priorities. Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL) vacated the seat to run for Senate. AL-2: Republican Barry Moore beat Democrat Phyllis Harvey-Hall (open seat) Moore served in the Alabama House of Representatives from 2010 to 2018. The seat was vacated by Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) who retired. CA-8 Republican Jay Obernolte beat Democrat Christine Bubser (open seat) Jay Obsernolte served in the California State Assembly since 2014. -
Roster Executive Committee 2019-20
ROSTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2019-20 NCSL OFFICERS President Staff Chair Speaker Robin Vos Martha R. Wigton Assembly Speaker Director – House Budget & Research Wisconsin Legislature Office State Capitol, Room 217 West Georgia General Assembly PO Box 8953 412 Coverdell Legislative Office Building Madison, WI 53708-8953 18 Capitol Square (608) 266-9171 Atlanta, GA 30334 [email protected] (404) 656-5050 [email protected] President-Elect Staff Vice Chair Speaker Scott Saiki Joseph James “J.J.” Gentry, Esq. Speaker of the House Counsel, Ethics Committee – Senate Hawaii State Legislature South Carolina General Assembly State Capitol PO Box 142 415 South Beretania Street, Room 431 205 Gressette Building Honolulu, HI 96813 Columbia, SC 29202 (808) 586-6100 (803) 212-6306 [email protected] [email protected] Vice President Immediate Past Staff Chair Speaker Scott Bedke Jon Heining Speaker of the House General Counsel – Legislative Council Idaho Legislature Texas Legislature State Capitol Building PO Box 12128 PO Box 83720 Robert E. Johnson Building 700 West Jefferson Street 1501 North Congress Avenue Boise, ID 83720-0038 Austin, TX 78711-2128 (208) 332-1123 (512) 463-1151 [email protected] [email protected] Executive Committee Roster 2019-20 ROSTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Immediate Past President Speaker Mitzi Johnson Speaker of the House Vermont General Assembly State House 115 State Street Montpelier, VT 05633-5501 (802) 828-2228 [email protected] AT LARGE MEMBERS Representative -
Preempting the Public Interest
PREEMPTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST How TTIP Will Limit US States’ Public Health and Environmental Protections i THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW © 2015 Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) About CIEL Founded in 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) uses the power of law to protect the environment, promote human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society. CIEL is dedicated to advocacy in the global public interest through legal counsel, policy research, analysis, education, training, and capacity building. “Preempting the Public Interest: How TTIP Will Limit US States’ Public Health and Environmental Protections” by the Center for International Environmental Law is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Sharon Anglin Treat, former legislator for the state of Maine, in collaboration with Baskut Tuncak, senior attorney at CIEL. Many thanks to David Azoulay and Carroll Muffett for helpful insights and perspectives. A special thanks to Amanda Kistler and CIEL intern Melissa E. Shapiro for their assistance and contributions. PREEMPTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST ii Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Key Messages and Recommendations 3 I. Introduction 4 II. US State Regulation of Chemicals and Pesticides State policy on chemicals and consumer products State pesticides policy 9 III. Details of the EU’s TTIP Regulatory Cooderation Proposal US states and EU member nations (“non-central governments”) would be covered by most of the provisions of the EU’s proposed Chapter on Regulatory Cooperation Federal government oversight of US state compliance with regulatory cooperation Scope of legislation and regulations covered Enforcing the regulatory cooperation obligations 13 IV. -
The Status of Women in Utah Politics: a 2021 Update
Research & Policy Brief February 3, 2021 | No. 29 The Status of Women in Utah Politics: A 2021 Update The Utah Women & Leadership Project (UWLP) began re- The number of states that still have yet to elect a woman to porting on the status of women in Utah politics in 2014, with serve in Congress is down to one (Vermont)10; Mississippi updates in 2017 and now 2021. The first series of reports in recently dropped from the list, electing its first female repre- 2014 were initially prompted by the Center for American sentative in 2018.11 In addition, the 117th Congress has the Progress report titled “The State of Women in America: A highest count of women of color in US history, with 46 Dem- 50-State Analysis of How Women Are Faring Across the ocrats and 5 Republicans, a total of 51 seats, compared to the Nation” that ranked Utah last in terms of women being in 34 reported in our 2017 brief.12 The first Korean-American positions of decision making and leadership. Soon after, a woman was also elected to Congress in 2020.13 Finally, in series of other national reports1 also ranked Utah poorly, and 2021 Kamala Harris began her term as the first woman ever most used the following four criteria: 1) gender wage gap, 2) elected vice president. She is the first Black and the first educational attainment, 3) women in management roles, and South Asian person to hold that office. 4) women serving in state legislatures. UWLP research re- Utah leased through the years also confirmed that Utah is below Utah has six seats in its national delegation (two senators and the national average in all these areas. -
![Wikipedia 1. President[Edit] 2. Congress[Edit]](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/7824/wikipedia-1-president-edit-2-congress-edit-2447824.webp)
Wikipedia 1. President[Edit] 2. Congress[Edit]
Wikipedia 1. President[edit] America's first president, George Washington, started the tradition of informal presidential term limits by refusing to run for a third term (originally he claimed he did not want to run in the first place, much less for a second term). The short-lived Confederate States of America adopted a six-year term for their president and vice-president and barred the president from seeking reelection. That innovation was endorsed by many American politicians after the American Civil War, most notably by Rutherford B. Hayes in his inaugural address. Franklin D. Roosevelt (president 1933 - 1945) was the first and only American president to break Washington's tradition successfully. He died in office a few months after starting his fourth term. This gave rise to a successful move in Congress to formalize the traditional two-term limit by amending the U.S. Constitution. As ratified in 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment provides that "no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice". 2. Congress[edit] Letter from Senator Orrin Hatch, first elected in 1976, expressing reservations regarding term limits (dated February 10, 2011) Reformers during the early 1990s used the initiative and referendum to put congressional term limits on the ballot in 24 states. Voters in eight of these states approved the congressional term limits by an average electoral margin of two to one.[26] It was an open question whether states had the constitutional authority to enact these limits. In May 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in U.S.