|
Each Saturday 8:30-9:30AM a group of your Davis County Legislators will be holding updates via Facebook live on the South Davis Community Page. Please tune in for the latest updates.
Click Here to Join the Facebook Live!
On Friday, two bills that got media attention (and that many feel are controversial), came to the floor of the house. Like last year, House Leadership took the approach to address some of the well-known challenging bills during the first week, so that they don’t distract from the efforts to balance the budget and address a huge number of bills later in the session. It’s a long read, but if you would like to understand my approach and deliberation process, I’ll share with you my thoughts on these bills and why I voted for them.
HB261 Equal Opportunity Initiatives (“DEI Bill”)
Background:
I want to live in a diverse and inclusive society where each individual is respected. I believe we make better decisions when all voices are heard and considered. I believe that the government employment discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or gender identity or political beliefs is wrong and not appropriate. I believe we should strive for all students to have access to the same opportunities. I recognize that many disadvantaged students need and deserve extra help to succeed with their educational goals.
Some citizens, and many university professors & staff have expressed serious concerns about the landscape at some of our higher education institutions. They have expressed worry about their students and their profession as they see a decline in student engagement and an environment where so many are afraid to speak up. These individuals want diversity on their campuses but feel (and cite compelling evidence) that their universities do not welcome diverse viewpoints and are not teaching students how to critically think or model constructive disagreement. Over the past year, a group of lawmakers have studied and worked to address their concerns to ensure public institutions remain a marketplace of free ideas.
What I liked about the bill:
I like that this bill aims to create equal opportunities in higher education by:
Removing barriers and ensuring fairness so all students can succeed. It guarantees higher education institutions remain a free marketplace of ideas and knowledge and protects free speech and open dialogue on campuses.
Ensuring common-sense policies in state agencies and higher education institutions by no longer requiring job applicants to provide submissions or attend trainings that promote political ideologies (of any kind).
Does not remove funding for diversity or inclusion efforts — but does prevent discriminatory practices based on an individual's race, color, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, religion, or gender identity — and requires those programs to be open to any students that need extra support.
What I didn’t like about the bill:
-I didn’t like that the restrictions are also applied to K-12 public education, and all state and local government employers. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that we have a problem in K-12 education like we see in higher education. I worry that including all state and local government employers could have unintended consequences.
How Did I Vote?
I voted for an amendment on the floor that would have limited the scope to Higher Education (removed K-12 & Local Government), but that amendment failed. Overall, I decided that the positives outweighed the negatives, and I voted for the bill.
HB257 Sex-based Designations for Privacy, Anti-bullying, and Women's Opportunities (“Bathroom Bill”)
Background:
I struggle with the balance between our clear responsibility to protect the privacy and innocence of individuals, especially children, and the desire to show compassion and understanding to those who have a very real struggle with gender identity and may not feel safe in our schools or public places. I believe that it’s fair to expect some level of privacy from individuals of the opposite biological sex when going to a rec center or school changing room.
Because of ambiguity in the law, apparently some public entities have chosen not to enforce, or don’t believe they can enforce biological males from walking into (and undressing in) female locker rooms, changing areas and restrooms, or biological females from entering into male changing facilities. I believe this needs to be clarified and the behavior of a very very small number of bad actors (who are claiming to be transgender to justify their behavior) needs to be stopped.
My understanding is that the vast majority of transgender individuals (and many non-transgender individuals) prefer to use single occupant restrooms and changing areas. Personally, I haven’t seen any evidence of trans kids or adults in Utah causing problems in restrooms. However, unfortunately I think there is still some level of fear and uncomfortableness with transgender individuals, especially for those who don’t have a close friend or family member who is part of that community.
What I liked about the bill:
-I agree with the portions of the bill that focus on equal access to high quality facilities and scheduling for women’s sports.
-I strongly agree with the privacy protections for locker rooms, changing areas and showers where people might be changing clothes. I like the clarification of the law that “An individual in a privacy space has a reasonable expectation of privacy”.
-I liked the attempt to set a legal standard for distinctions on the basis of sex in certain publicly owned/funded facilities (that legal standard may need to be adjusted over time, but we need to draw a line somewhere). And I liked that it gave some clear guidance and legal rights to transgender adults that have completely committed to a transition (I spoke with a transgender constituent who appreciated this element).
-I liked the fact that, for the most part, people can continue to use the bathroom they are comfortable with like they do today, as long as they don’t bother other people. The only way someone is guilty of a trespassing offense if there is unreasonable behavior, which is defined as if the individual: (a) under circumstances which a reasonable person would expect to likely cause affront or alarm to, on, or in the presence of another individual; or (b) for any purpose other than the intended use of the privacy space.
-I like that there is a stiff penalty (class B misdemeanor) for anyone who files a false report (hopefully this will keep people from designating themselves as the bathroom police)
-I liked that the bill requires state and local governments to include single occupant facilities in new buildings, and consider if older buildings could be retrofitted as they are remodeled. I think this will cost local taxpayers a lot of money, but I think it’s the best approach given the world we live in.
What I didn’t like about the bill:
-I am concerned that those who run our homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers had concerns with the bill, and were unsure how it could impact their federal funding sources and thus their ability to help the most vulnerable in our society.
-I felt like the policies in this bill related to bathroom use by those who identify as transgender had not been studied in enough depth and had time to bake as much as some of the other controversial subjects we are faced with. I believe with a little more time we might be able to come to more agreement.
-I didn’t like that some educated legal minds believe elements of the bill violate the “equal protection” clause of the constitution. My understanding is that nationally, the circuit courts have been inconsistent; some bathroom bills from other states have been struck down, and some have been upheld. And so far the Supreme Court has not taken up a case that would clarify the legal issues. Depending on what changes the senate makes, I expect a legal challenge and this bill could be very expensive to defend in court.
How Did I Vote?
In the end, I decided that the positives of this bill to protect children and youth were worth voting for and I voted yes. I am still hopeful that the Senate will look carefully at some of the more troubling aspects of the bill, and improve it. I suspect that unless the Senate can find a magic solution, some elements of this bill may be headed to the courts to resolve.
Other Useful Links for more info:
HB261 DEI Bill Committee Hearing Recording
HB261 DEI Bill Floor Debate Recording
HB257 Women’s Sports & Privacy Bill Committee Hearing Recording
HB257 Women’s Sports & Privacy Bill Floor Debate Recording
Jan 20, 2024 Saturday Morning Legislative Update Discussion with South Davis Legislators on Facebook where HB261 (DEI) and HB257 (Women’s Privacy) bills were discussed:
H.B. 10 Public Fund Amendments
H.B. 12 Tax Incentive Revisions
H.B. 14 School Threat Penalty Amendments
H.B. 16 Sexual Offenses Amendments
H.B. 17 Sales and Use Tax Revisions
H.B. 19 Higher Education Financial Aid Amendments
H.B. 22 Concurrent Enrollment Revisions
H.B. 23 Division of Outdoor Recreation Advisory Council Sunset Extension
H.B. 24 Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act Amendments
H.B. 25 Electronic Notarization Amendments
H.B. 32 Short-term Rental Modifications
H.B. 33 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax and Licensing Act Amendments
H.B. 34 Tax Refund Claim Amendments
H.B. 37 Joint Tenancy Presumption Amendments
H.B. 39 Massage Therapy Practice Act Amendments
H.B. 42 Water Rights Publication Amendments
H.B. 54 Coal Miner Certification Panel Amendments
H.B. 46 Veterans and Military Affairs Commission Amendments
H.B. 47 Utah Seismic Safety Commission Amendments
H.B. 50 State Highway Designation Amendments
H.B. 53 Multi County Appraisal Trust Amendments
H.B. 45 Safeut and School Safety Commission Amendments
H.B. 60 Phased Retirement Extension
H.B. 64 State Construction and Fire Codes Amendments
H.B. 66 Property Tax Relief Amendments
H.B. 67 First Responder Mental Health Services Grant Program Amendments
H.B. 88 Landowner Liability Amendments
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Reappointing John Q. Cannon as Director of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel
|
