Utah Sta te Legislative Session 2006 Gays Pack Citizen Equality Utah Training Seminars by JoSelle Vanderhooft joselle@slmetro.com
Writing letters. Shaking hands. Summarizing a life story in half a minute. These were some of the skills two state representatives and one state senator taught to aspiring citizen lobbyists at Equality Utah’s 2006 afternoon training session. Titled “How to Talk to Your Elected Officials: Being a Citizen Lobbyist” the session was held Saturday, January 14 in the West Building on Capitol Hill. During the three-hour session, Representatives Jackie Biskupski and Ralph Becker and Senator Scott McCoy taught the forty participants basics of talking to political leaders about gay and lesbian rights. “Every contact you make with one of the legislators up here is an example of showing that LGBT people are real citizens with real lives and important members of the state of Utah,” said McCoy in his opening remarks. “Even if you talk with a legislator and they don’t change their position, just the fact that you talked to them is important.” To illustrate his point, McCoy mentioned a recent Deseret News poll which asked readers to list what they viewed as their legislators’ most important concerns. Of these, their constituents’ opinions came in dead last. “In fact, the exact opposite is true,” McCoy said. “We spend an incredible amount of money and time trying to find out what you think.” For the first half of the session, McCoy and Biskupski told participants how to effectively voice their opinions to legislators. They discussed the basics of writing lawmakers emails and letters, and how to
10
■
SALT LAKE METRO ■ JANUARY 19, 2006
Equality Utah Position Statements It is Equality Utah’s position that all individuals have the right to protection from discrimination and bias-motivated harassment and violence. Accordingly, we support: 1. Adopting anti-hate crimes legislation in Utah. 2. Securing measures that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in employment, housing, public accommodation, education and extension of credit. 3. Securing measures to prevent harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and expression in Utah’s public schools and in foster care and juvenile detention settings. 4. Assuring that the juvenile justice system extend to LGBT youth the same procedural and other protections extended to all other youth. It is Equality Utah’s position that all families, including the families of LGBT people, deserve the government’s support, protection and equal treatment in their roles as partners, parents and caregivers. Moreover, it is Equality Utah’s position that the children of same-sex couples are often the ones who suffer most when the government denies their parents the same benefits and treatment provided to all other families. Accordingly, we support: 1. Securing measures to create domestic partner registries for same-sex partners. 2. Adopting domestic partner benefits for same-sex partners. 3. Extending state and municipal employee health and other benefits rights to same-sex partners. 4. Securing measures to extend hospital visitation rights and emergency medical decision-making rights to same-sex partners. 5. Assuring that parents in same-sex relationships be given the same adoption and custody rights extended to all other parents. It is Equality Utah’s position that the passage of Amendment 3 should be interpreted as dealing only with marriage and did not preempt state or municipal governments’ power to extend any of the rights mentioned above to same-sex couples.
make an effective phone call to a legislator’s staff. In all cases, McCoy recommended that lobbyists give their name, address, the name of the bill being debated, their position on the bill (opposed or in favor) and “three or four bullet points” explaining their position. McCoy also addressed the best way to speak to a legislator in person during the legislative session, when lawmakers are short on free time. When trying to leave a note for a senator, he said, look for the Sergeants at Arms in maroon coats. For representatives, look for the Sergeants in green. Stationed at tables outside both chambers, these men have rectangular note cards (blue for the senate, green for the house) lobbyists can use to drop a lawmaker a note, or to request a conversation. “Sometimes we’re in the middle of a vote and we can’t get right out to see you,” McCoy explained. “So it’s really important for you to write the time on the top of the slip and how long you’re going to be there. It’s also important to leave an identifier, such as “I’m wearing a red jacket.” When talking to a legislator in person, Biskupski suggested that lobbyists dress up, bring a handout summarizing their points and answer all questions honestly. “The truth is really what is important,” she said. “If they ask you a question and you don’t know the answer, it’s okay to tell them you don’t know and you’ll get back to them.” She added that lobbyists should try to relate to lawmakers on an emotional level. “We also want to emphasize telling a brief story in a personal manner,” she said. “If you can tell the legislator who you are and how this legislation will affect you, that’s helpful for them.” The two legislators then discussed committee hearings, formal meetings in which members of the community may testify about proposed legislation. As there is often limited time for testimony, especially on controversial bills, Biskupski advised lobbyists to prepare their testimony ahead of time. She also said lobbyists should remain calm at the microphone. “We’ve seen people get up to speak and they are so frustrated by what they’ve heard that they become hostile,” she explained. “That’s not effective and it’s very hard to listen to.” After an hour of training, participants were divided into three groups to practice their newfound skills. Each had one minute to speak to one of the three lawmakers about their position on such things as hate crimes legislation and Representative Chris Buttars’ proposal to ban gay-straight alliances in public schools. After a brief critique, participants were taken on a half-hour tour of the senate and house chambers to further acquaint them with the legislative process. In closing, McCoy reminded participants not to give up lobbying, even if their senator or representative held an opposing view point. “Don’t think that if someone has said something in the press that it is a done deal,” he said. “If they don’t hear the other side they may think that’s all there is on the matter and they’re doing the right thing.” “Know you don’t have to go it alone if you’re not comfortable,” Biskupski added. “There are people who work on these issues year-round, such as Equality Utah, who can help you.” The dates of future lobbyist training workshops can be found on equalityutah.org. The class is free, but advanced registration is required.
Hate Crime Bill ‘Very Different’ from Previous Attempts by JoSelle Vanderhooft joselle@slmetro.com
and/or legal disadvantage in the past. When an audience member asked if HB 90 was potentially redundant, as judges can already consider these factors, Litvack
When discussing the latest attempt to pass a hate crimes legislation in Utah, Representative David Litvack, D. Salt Lake City, noted that this year’s proposed bill looks a bit different from sessions past. “I can tell you it’s not where we thought we’d be last session,” he said in a town hall meeting held immediately after Equality Utah’s Jan. 14 citizen lobbyist training session. In this forty-five minute discussion, Litvack addressed last session’s failed hate crimes bills, Senate Bill 181 (Criminal Code Amendments) and his own House Bill 50 (Criminal Penalty Amendment). He also introduced House Bill 90 (Criminal Penalty Amendments), which he drafted after he and several legal scholars researched hate crimes legislation around the country. The bill was introduced at the opening of the 2006 legislative session on January 16. When explaining HB 90, Litvack said it was “very different” from similar bills proposed in Rep. David Litvak, D-Salt Lake the past nine years. “The process this bill disagreed. He said his bill would write these has gone through is the most critical thing considerations into law, allowing citizens to to understanding it,” he said. better track a judge’s record in considering Last year’s failed legislation would have them during sentencing. enhanced by one step penalties for crimes “We will be able to hold judges accountbased on victims’ actual or perceived atable,” he said. He added that even if a judge tributes including such things as race, color, didn’t consider these factors in sentencing, disability, religion, gender and age. For the board of pardons — which is not beexample, by prosecuting a Class A misdeholden to a judge’s decision — would likely meanor as a third-degree felony. One of the do so. “I also have a great deal of confidence two bills’ most controversial points — and in the board of pardons that comes from a major reason many lawmakers opposed it their past advocacy of hate crimes [laws],” — was the inclusion of sexual orientation on he said. this list of attributes. “What people would say with an enhanceAccording to Litvack, legal scholars examment [as lawmakers have tried in the past] ined other states’ attempts to “circumvent” is that we’ve already got laws on the books. adding actual or perceived sexual orientaBut you can’t say that with this approach tion to a list of attributes. One such attempt involved a four-year-old Georgia hate crimes because you’re working within the system [to address hate crimes],” he added. law which raised penalties for crimes comThough Litvack said HB 90 was not an mitted out of “bias or prejudice.” The state ideal hate crimes bill, he said it might be the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional in April, 2004 for not specifying which groups it best lawmakers can do in Utah’s current political climate. He noted that several “ethnic would protect. and religious communities” have given him “[This ruling] was a big victory for us bepositive feedback about the bill, including cause it affirmed a lot of what we’re doing,” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day said Litvack. Saints. As with last year’s hate crimes bills, According to Litvack, HB 90 differs from Utah’s largest church has said it will “not past attempts in that it doesn’t include a list oppose” HB 90. of actual or perceived attributes as motiIn closing, Litvack called upon gay comvating factors in crimes of bias. Nor is it as munity members to remain vigilant, even if vaguely worded as Utah’s current statute HB 90 becomes law, as it is only a first step involving crimes of bias. Instead, HB 90 will towards stricter hate crimes legislation. ask that judges consider a number of factors “I understand the hesitancy [to supportwhen sentencing criminals: if the crime ing this bill] and I do think we need to be caused harm to the victim’s group, if the vigilant and look on this with skepticism crime has a likelihood of inciting commuwhen it passes,” he said. “But we also need nity unrest, such as riots or further attacks victories.” against members of a group, and if the victim’s group has been the target of crimes