Utah Democrats refuse Republican help & continue their tantrum

Jim Dabakis, Chair of the Utah Democratic Party (“I once caught a fish this big…” he might be saying. But probably not.) (Photo Credit: Salt Lake Tribune photographer Francisco Kjolseth)

Given the choice between accepting Republican help and continuing a public temper tantrum, Utah Democrat Jim Dabakis prefers a tantrum.

Democrats in Utah have learned a few salient facts over the last couple decades:

Most Utahns don’t agree with the Democratic platform and policies.
With that platform, Democrats aren’t going to win a majority, or even a sizable minority, of the state legislature.
And, they can’t win a state-wide election, either.
Also, this isn’t Burger King: you can’t have it your way. We have rules here, and we apply them equally to everyone.

_________________________

Enter Jim Dabakis. As they say in law school, if you can’t win on the facts, win with emotion. And the emotion he wants to win with is anger. Not able to get his way with the redistricting process, he is throwing a public temper tantrum.

As observed in an earlier post, Dabakis has worked hard to make gold from straw using an underfunded request for redistricting documents to smear the Utah legislature without evidence. The non-partisan Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel said Dabakis couldn’t have redistricting documents without paying for them, a cost that, under law, must be born by the requesting party. It was a $9,000 cost that the Utah Democratic Party, sitting on a $800,000 war chest, could easily afford.

Opposing the Democratic Party was an odd hero–retiring state legislator David Litvack, a Democrat.

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/billyhesterman/status/237582259761319936″]

To make the story stranger, the Utah Republican Party offered to pay the cost of the documents for the Democrats. Then, just as the documents were about to be released, the Democratic Party turned them down, claiming that no one should have to pay for them. Not even Republicans with cash in hand.

And then they promptly sent out a fundraising email vilifying the Utah legislature:

In a horrendous vote, the Utah State Legislature and the members of the Legislative Records Appeals Committee voted 3-1 that releasing the documents surrounding redistricting was not in the public interest and should remain hidden from the Utah State Democratic Party, numerous good government groups, the press, and the taxpayers of Utah.

Never mind that the documents could have been in the public long ago, or even this afternoon. Even when someone stepped forward to deliver the documents, the Democratic Party made it clear that they would rather politicize than progress.

This is bigger than political theater, bigger than Democrats versus Republicans. The legislature continues to hide behind closed doors, exorbitant fees, and archaic rules to keep the public out of the process. The work is already done. The documents have been compiled. We wrote the $5,000 check, we paid the fee. And now they’re sitting there, gathering dust. What are they hiding? What’s in the box? Why won’t they just release the documents?

Except that the Democrats did not pay the fee. It was not a flat fee, but a payment for the estimated cost of producing the documents. And, as was promised, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel delivered $5,000 worth of documents.

Rep. David Litvack

Dabakis doesn’t really want the documents. He knows how useless they will be. He knows that the redistricting process was conducted in full compliance with the law. And, worst of all, he knows that Utah’s demographics just won’t benefit Democrats, not unless they are slanted and distorted in their favor.

In the end, Utahns can tell the difference between grand standing and good public policy. On one hand we have Litvack, who represents the image of a consistent, fair public servant. On the other hand, we have Dabakis, more interested in a headline, in smearing his opponents than seeking compromise and the public interest.

We need public servants more like Litvack, willing to stand by his oath to the public over short-term interest and party loyalty. Politicians like Dabakis are savvy with the media, and he makes for great copy, but his grandstanding does little for the public interest.

[Daily Herald][Billy Hesterman]