►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Here
we
just
now
got
volume.
Sorry
representative,
ayer.
E
G
All
right,
sorry,
for
that
brief
pause.
We
were
discussing
we're
still
technically
on
the
redistricting
topic
from
yesterday.
So
let's
finish
that
out
before
we'll
approve
minutes
later
this
morning
before
we
kick
off
our
second
part
of
the
meeting
when
it
comes
to
our
corporations
agenda
outside
of
redistricting.
G
So
with
that,
mr
co-chair
good
morning,
thank
you.
F
I'm
just
gonna
make
a
a
brief
proposal
to
the
committee
and
that
doesn't
require
a
boat
now
or
anything,
but
we're
all
pretty
rough.
Yesterday
it
got
emotional,
it
got
hard
and
it's
going
to
continue
to
do
that.
We
have
three
plans
laying
on
the
desk
in
front
of
us,
and
I
know,
there's
a
fourth
one
coming
from
representative
yen
and
I
would
suggest
that
all
the
plans
get
presented
without
large
amounts
of
passionate
debate.
F
Just
lay
them
out
and
lay
the
facts,
the
bases
out,
and
then
we
hold
another
meeting
somewhere
towards
the
before
christmas
and
get
a
chance
to
take
these
four
plans
back
they
all
at
least
my
region.
They
make
substantial
changes
to
what
all
the
public
meetings
were,
and
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
go
back
to
my
county
commissioners,
my
clerks
and
my
constituents
and
find
out
what
they
like
and
what
they
don't
like,
so
that
we
honestly
can
come
back
without
it
being
my
opinion
or
your
opinions.
F
F
So
that's
my
hopes,
my
thoughts
I
have
to
leave
this
morning,
so
you
can
probably
get
it
done
without
me
regardless
I
don't
care.
Actually
I
do
care,
but
it's
it's
probably
done
better
without
me,
but
I
do
think
for
all
of
us
it's
better
if
we
have
some
time
to
sleep
on
and
talk
to
our
people,
because
these
are,
I
I
participated
in
a
lot
of
regional
plans,
listened
to
anonymous,
there's
some
changes
for
different
people
that
I
think
ought
to
be
talked
over
and
thought
about.
Thank
you.
F
H
Scott,
in
addition,
I've
got
three
different
sets
of
figures
here
that
I
would
guess,
are
showing
senate
districts
and
showing
a
number
of
them
outside
the
five
percent
deviation.
G
I
guess
we
can
certainly
have
open
comment
discussion
this
morning
committee
before
taking
a
step
on
on
any
motion.
I
guess
from
my
perspective
it's
now
december
1st
we
said
we'd
actually
have
a
plan
that
we
would
submit
to
the
legislature
by
december
first
three
months
ago.
We
have
not
gotten
to
that
point.
G
We
are
now
I'm
not
even
sure
if
we're
any
closer
than
we
were
yesterday,
quite
honestly,
so
until
we
actually
make
a
tough
decision
in
my
mind
and
put
a
plan
out,
love
it
or
hate
it
as
a
starting
point
for
us
to
take
back
to
our
districts-
and
I
don't
know
our
other
elected
officials,
mayors
commissioners,
I
feel
like
most
of
us-
have
talked
to
those
and
had
public
meetings
and
know
generally
the
thoughts
that
we're
represented
to
elect
from
our
our
constituencies
and
that's
why
they
elect
us
to
make
these
decisions
on
their
behalf
that
I
would
at
least
like
something
out
of
this
committee
today.
G
That's
a
statewide
rough
draft
plan
that
we
could
take
back
and
then,
if
you
don't
like
a
certain
area,
certain
districts,
you
can
substitute
those
out
whether
that's
two
district
swap
whether
that's
a
county,
whether
that's
a
five
county,
whether
that's
half
the
state
having
something
on
paper.
So
the
rest
of
the
state
knows
where
we
are.
G
I
still
see
it
as
kind
of
four
distinct
regions,
the
east,
that's
kind
of
central
line,
block
of
johnson
sheridan,
the
toronto
albany,
the
south
and
the
west,
and
then
the
base,
and
in
fremont
it's
kind
of
how
I
see
the
world.
But
I
would
certainly
appreciate
leaving
this
meeting
with
something
that
says:
hey
here's,
a
preliminary
map
that
we're
working
from
we
currently
have
the
scott
plan.
We've
tried
to
put
that
on
paper.
G
G
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
have
deep
respect
for
everybody
that
sits
on
this
committee,
but
we
came
here
to
do
a
job.
We
didn't
come
here
to
tuck
our
tails
and
go
home.
I
I
K
So,
mr
chairman,
and
I
wouldn't
slept
on
this
and
I'm
kind
of
glad
I
did
so
in
these
in
these
conflict
areas.
I
think
we
were
making
the
the
same
mistake
that
people
have
been
in
these
shoes
since
the
beginning
of
time,
putting
lines
on
paper,
divisions
of
power
and
and
splitting
it
up,
and
whether
you
want
to
call
it
remove.
L
K
Remove
the
titles
of
counties,
poor
county,
rich
county-
well,
it
goes
back
to
race.
We
made
that
illegal,
but
if
you
look
at
look
at
the
history
of
this
from
the
beginning
of
the
world
till
now,
what
we
learned
is
we
as
a
nation,
we
shouldn't
split
things
by
race
right.
We
we
learned
that
mistake.
We
made
those
laws
federally
and
we're
here
we're
trying
to
decide
these
by
resources,
division
of
resources
whatever.
K
I
think
I
think
we
go
about
this
through
different
lens,
so
in
these
conflict
areas
I
think
it's
really
easy
to
to
come
to
to
say.
Okay,
we
want
to
split
this
rich
county,
poor
county.
However,
it
works.
I
think
we
go
through
a
lens
of
diversity.
So
if
we
take
these,
take
these
places
where
there's
conflict
in
there-
really,
I
only
think
there's
three
and
and
we
make
them
as
diverse
as
possible
instead
of
instead
of
the
the
divisions.
G
So
we
do
have
a
couple
of
hours
in
the
agenda,
so
let's
take
it
slow
and
we
can
see
where
we
are
as
we
go,
but
I
think
it
would
be
at
least
a
good
first
step
to
ask
mr
swank
to
go
through
the
work
he's
done
on
our
behalf
since
last
night.
What's
on
the
website
for
the
public
to
see
kind
of
where
we
are
from
a
workload
standpoint
of
lso
and
and
where
the
conflicts
remain
on
maps
in
front
of
us?
G
So,
mr
swink,
if
you
would
take
five
minutes,
update
us
on
the
website
and
some
work
you've
done
last
night
and
where
you
think
we
might
be.
L
Yes,
mr
sharon,
one
moment,
may
I
get
the
screen
share.
Please.
L
Mr
chairman,
sorry,
last
night
my
understanding
was,
I
was
to
provide
two
statewide
maps
for
the
committee.
The
first
one
was
basically
to
provide
all
the
information
background
information
related
to
the
statewide
plan
that
chairman's
awards
are
presented
to
the
committee
and
that
is
kind
of
titled
statewide
plan
compilation
number
one.
L
It's
based
off
of
chairman
zwanitzer's
11th
district
plan
submission
it
utilizes,
the
campbell
county
region,
6
plan
that
stays
within
deviation
and
proposes
some
sort
of
sharing
out
of
western
county
and
the
senator
boner
region,
seven
plan
with
some
modifications
because
of
that
region,
six
plan,
so
that
was
kind
of
the
base
and
then
we
fit
in
the
other
districts.
L
The
other
regional
plans
all
submitted,
except
for
region
10,
which
was
the
their
option.
Two
that
was
proposed
to
be
added
to
this
plan.
So
that's
the
summary
of
what
the
first
compilation
is
and
you
should
have
in
your
packet.
You
should
have
three
documents.
The
first
one
would
say
statewide
plan
on
the
front
number
one,
and
then
it
has
the
deviations
and
population
for
each
of
the
districts
with
highlights
of
the
districts
that
are
below
or
above
the
five
percent
deviation
benchmarks.
L
And
then
you
should
have
a
map
apologize.
We
could
not
get
this
printed
on
a
large
piece
of
paper
this
morning,
but
that
was
my
fault,
but
that
should
be
your
first
option
to
look
at
the
second
one
was
the
motion
proposed
by
senator
driscoll
and
passed
yesterday,
and
it
was
to
I
guess
the
term
was
used
snap
in
plans
that
have
minimal
or
limited
conflicts
with
other
regions.
L
So
this
basically
means
we
brought
in
region
one
two,
three
four:
five
as
presented
that
had
prior
no
conflicts
with
anything
with
anybody
else,
so
that
was
region
one's
plan
from
the
county
clerk
region,
two
from
albany
county
region,
three
from
natrona
county
option,
one
region,
four
fremont
county
five,
which
was
sheridan
and
johnson.
They
only
had
one
option:
six
was
senator
driscoll's
and
the
crook
weston
county
clerk's
plan
to
keep
all
districts
in
region
six
in
in
the
region
and
would
be
above
deviation.
L
Region
seven
was
to
utilize
senator
boner's
plan
with
no
modifications,
because
that
does
not
go
into
region,
one
or
region
six
region,
eight,
which
is
the
basin
plan
and
region
910
there.
There
was
two
I
guess
comments
made
yesterday.
One
was
to
leave
910
blank
because
there's
a
conflict
related
to
albany
county.
So
what
I
did
is
I
actually
showed
you
what
it
looks
like
with
and
without
region
nine
and
ten
fif
completed
so
map
two
provides
the
the
the
diversion
requested
with
9
10,
just
showing
the
county
boundaries.
L
It
does
not
show
the
districts
and
then
2a
shows
region,
10's
option,
1
plan
with
rock
river
taken
out
of
house
district
47..
That's
because
region
2
already
had
that
allocated.
What
that
does.
Is
it
brings
house
district
47
down
to
about
88.90
in
terms
of
population
which
lowers
this
deviation
to
about
seven?
I
believe
it's
minus
7.3,
or
something
like
that.
That
should
be
shown
in
your.
So
your
two
other
items
in
your
packet
would
be
option
one
or
option
two,
which
I
apologize.
L
I
forgot
the
to
print
the
title,
so
it's
handwritten
on.
There
should
say
comp
plan
or
cop
map
two
on
top,
and
that
shows
the
one
with
just
the
counties
for
region,
nine
and
ten,
and
then
two
a
shows
you
what
it
would
look
like
with
the
option,
one
from
region,
ten
with
rock
river
taken
out
of
that
district.
L
And
then,
if
you
look
on
those
data
sheets
in
front,
it
should
show
you
that
the
house
district
47
on
2a
actually
is
at
minus
7.58,
and
I
believe
senator
scott
mentioned
that
showing
that
would
kind
of
indicate
where
that
district
would
need
to
go
by
in
terms
of
balancing
the
remainder
of
that
region.
If
they
wanted
to
get
it
above
deviation
and
mr
swank,
could
you.
G
Click
on
that
link
for
me
just
so,
people
watching
could
sorry,
which
one
you're
currently
on
three
so
that'd
be
fine.
Okay,
just
the
one
you're
currently
on.
Thank.
L
You
sorry
what
I
did
want
to
indicate
also
is
so
in
all
three
versions:
region:
eight,
the
basin
shows
all
their
districts
below
deviation
because
they
only
had
one
submission
in
the
first
one.
The
zoanus
are
submission
again
all
regions,
all
region,
eight
districts
are
below
deviation.
There
is
one
that
I
missed
prior
its
house
district
10
is
just
slightly
below
deviation,
which
was
drawn
into
goshen
county.
L
It's
at
91.03,
it's
about
30
people
short
of
5
and
then
in
so
that
would
be,
and
then
so,
if
I
go
back
to,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
knew
what
the
coding
was
on
those
sheets.
L
If
you
go
to
the
the
second
plan
or
show
this
one
up
there,
it
shows
the
counties
in
shadow
or
basically
they
outline
again
this
one.
I
believe
it
shows
the
basin
below
deviation
and
the
region.
Six
counties
above
deviation
and
that's
where
you
get
the
range
of
roughly
12
percent
from
top
to
bottom
in
the
last
one
because
of
what
is
what
we
do
to
region,
9
and
10
and
house
district
47.
L
H
L
L
L
This
has
all
districts
within
deviation,
except
for
region
8
and
the
region
10
on
the
corner
in
the
southwest.
Those
are
all
below
5
percent,
that's
district,
10,
sorry,
okay
and
the
region.
Eight
is
the
basin,
the
six
counties
in
the
basin?
Okay,
so
that's
that's
the
first
option
that
was
discussed
yesterday.
H
The
mr
chairman,
the
the
you
said
something
about
a
region,
six
being
out
of
deviation
in
one
of
the
plans.
I
L
L
L
G
M
Thank
you.
Would
you
please
take
a
look
at
the
legend
on
the
map
pages
where
it
has
proposed
house
districts
and
it
has
the
pins.
M
L
Mr
chairman,
representative
mcguire,
those
pins
are
corresponding
pardon
me,
corresponding
to
the
colors
of
the
districts
on
the
map.
So
there's
two
differences.
Those
pins
show
the
district
colors
for
proposed
districts,
and
then
they
show
in
a
blue
just
a
flat
blue
color
for
all
the
labels.
It's
just
the
way
that
google
maps
brought
in
the
information.
L
So
if
you
look
at
the
screen,
it'll
show
you:
if
you
expand
all
the
districts,
you
can
go
under
hit.
14
and
it'll.
Take
you
to
that
district
on
the
map,
and
it
shows
you
the
kind
of
metadata
for
that
map.
It
shows
you,
the
population
for
this
district
in
this
plan
is
9278,
and
then
it
goes
down
with
all
the
other
information.
L
It
is
a
little
bit
hard
to
correspond
the
kind
of
the
pin
colors
to
the
map
colors,
because
they're
not
consistently
the
same.
I
mean
they
they're
the
same
color
they're,
just
in
a
different
at
a
different
scale.
G
And
then,
mr
swank,
I
don't
want
to
put
anybody
on
the
spot,
but
you
said
there
might
be
a
fourth
plan
coming
and
I
don't
know
who
that's
from.
But
if
anybody
in
the
committee
wants
to
talk
about
it
conceptually
what
it
might
be,
certainly
happy
to
hear
it
if
you
want
to
representative,
since
people
are
looking
at
you,
if
you're
not
ready
to
present
that
certainly
understand.
B
No,
mr
chairman,
I
mean
it
was
just
an
a
map
that
I
drew
based
on
a
thought
that
was
floated
yesterday.
I
probably
won't
make
a
motion,
but
you
know
other
people
are
more
than
willing
to
do
it.
It
just
centered
around
a
district
that
was
western
west
end
county
in
niagara
county,
and
that
would
mean
crook
county
still
goes
into
campbell
and
then
campbell
dips
into
converse
county.
F
I
think
map's
been
sent
to
mr
swank
if
we
can
get
some
copies
of
it,
because
it's
pretty
hard.
This
is
exactly
why
I
talked
about
another
meeting.
It's
pretty
hard
to
sit
here
on
a
chair
yeah
and
make
decisions
you
you
guys
all
talked
about
making
decisions
now
and
we've
agreed
to
it.
The
truth
is
what
we
agreed
to
is
multiple
more
meetings
and
that's,
I
think,
rash
decisions
don't
make
sense.
F
So
I
I'd
like
to
see
us
talk
about
these
plans,
but
I
can
tell
you
for
me-
and
I
am
leaving
so
it's
not
because
I'm
leaving,
but
it's
pretty
dang
hard
to
put
up
four
plans
and
in
a
30
minute
time
frame,
make
a
hard
decision
without
looking
at
the
tables
to
go
with
them.
Where
we're
out
of
variance
where
we're
going
to
be.
L
I
believe
this
is
the
plan.
I
just
received
the
email
so
I'll,
let
representation
if
he
wants
to
would.
B
And
thoughts
from
the
table
yeah,
so
this
is
this
is
just
like
you
could
even
conceive
of
it
as
an
amendment
to
swanitsa's
map
that
he
showed
the
other
day.
Essentially,
it
just
has
a
crook
county
in
a
campbell
county
district,
where
it's
majority
crook
and
then
a
western
nibra
district,
because
that's
basically
an
ideal
district
population,
the
campbell
and
converse
border,
so
campbell
would
then,
because
it
has
population
taken
from
it
by
crook,
would
have
to
dip
into
converse.
B
I
just
choose
some
borders
that
relatively
fit
precinct
lines,
but
I
don't
know
the
community
of
interest
well
enough
compared
to
the
folks
in
congress,
in
campbell
county,
to
make
those
decisions.
So
it
was
it's
just
to
be
able
to
see
the
idea
on
paper
and
those
borders
could
be
adjusted
accordingly.
G
Before
I
get
to
senator
boner,
I
would,
I
think
the
whole
committee
agrees
and
if
you
don't,
let
me
know
that
if
we
go
with
a
statewide
plan
that
shares
districts
between
counties
that
we
are
all
agreeable
to
those
counties
getting
back
together,
seeing
where
those
lines
kind
of
agreeing
on,
let's
say
a
number
give
or
take
50
constituents
and
drawing
those
lines
along
the
communities
of
interest
that
county
sees
best,
I
think,
is
what
referendum
said,
and
I've
heard
that
yesterday.
G
N
N
My
idea
split
conference,
counting
four
different
ways
but
which
I
didn't
think
was
possible,
but
apparently
it
is
but
but
but
the
idea
of
being
that
you
have
a
house
district
center
around
westin
and
nyberg
county,
and
then
you
basically
have
campbell
crook
converse
work
together
to
sort
of
div,
further
divide
house
seats
and,
obviously-
and
why
can't
conclusion
I
can't
do-
is
you
have
to
do
the
whole
east
side
of
the
state?
N
Clearly
there's
a
serious
conflict
in
region
6
and
I
think,
whether
path
we
move
forward,
we're
going
to
need
to
have
region,
6
and
region
7
work
together,
and
that
would
of
course
the
the
challenge
with
that
is
that
you
know
we're
right
up
at
a
pretty
hard
limit
in
laramie
county
with.
You
know
big
right
at
that
plus
five
percent
deviation.
So
I
also
have
a
conceptual
plan.
I
guess
and
once
again
recognizing
that
we're
all
going
to
go
back
and
continue
to
draw
lines.
N
That
would
basically
be
a
modified
version
of
the
motion
that
represents
swansea
made
last
night
to
move
an
entire
full
house
seat
from
region
9
and
10
to
what
why
ownership
was
basically
laramie
county,
but
obviously
it
would
affect
the
entire
east
side
of
the
state.
So
what
happens
when
you
do
that
in
committee?
I
did
send
you
an
email,
obviously
it's
very
conceptual,
but
it
does
even
out
the
population
deviations
between
the
west
and
east
side
of
state
along
I-80,
basically,
regions,
nine
and
ten
going
into
albany
and
laramie
county.
N
It
does
create
a
split
house
district
between
albany
and
laramie
county,
but
it
eliminates
one
between
sweetwater
and
carbon
county,
which
has
a
good
chance
of
eliminating
or
reducing
the
geriatric
size
of
representative
paxton's
current
seat,
which
would
be
another
benefit
so
near
as
I
can
tell
it's.
Probably
a
wash
in
terms
of
number
of
houses
get
split
between
counties.
It
evens
out
the
population,
deviations
which
are
significant
between
reach,
9
and
10,
and
laramie
county
in
particular,
and
it
reflects
serious
population
shifts
that
we've
seen
along
the
I-80
corridor,
and
so
that's
very
conceptual.
N
But
if
we
could
agree
to
at
least
try
to
pursue
that
idea,
that
would
give
us
the
flexibility
we
need
in
regions
six
and
seven
to
potentially
move
one
to
two
thousand
people
from
the
south
side
of
our
region
into
laramie
county.
If
that
becomes
necessary
and
based
off
the
rough
calculations,
I
did
based
off
of
this
notion
that
would
probably
become
necessary.
N
So
another
very
conceptual
idea,
I'd
like
to
share
with
the
committee
and
with
the
public,
but
someone
I
think,
would
you
know
nobody
gets
everything
what
they
want?
No
we're
not
dealing
with
whole
numbers,
we're
talking
with
half
house
seats.
N
I
think
that's
where,
if
we're
going
to
compromise,
that's
where
it's
going
to
be,
and
so
I
think
we're
past
point
like
I
said
working
in
full
numbers
and
full
counties
and
we
have
to
come
in
some
compromise
somewhere.
So
it's
another
concept.
I'd
like
to
share.
H
And
I
have
a
further
problem:
we've
been
looking
entirely
at
house
districts
and
I
think
particularly
the
the
when
you
label
compilation
plan
one.
I
can't
see
a
way
that
that
can
be
worked
into
a
senate
plan
that
can
or
should
pass
the
senate.
H
H
But
if
we're
going
to
stay
comfortable,
I
certainly
couldn't
support
anything
that
that
was
based
on
that
plan.
C
You
chairman,
sir
senator
scott
and
other
members
of
the
committee
in
trying
to
understand
all
of
our
positions.
What
I
am
frustrated
with,
and
maybe
what
the
public
probably
is
too,
is
we're
not
explaining
why
we
don't
like
it
or
what
the
concern
might
be
so
senator
scott.
I
heard
you
say
that
you
don't
think
it
could
pass
the
senate
and
it's
not
it's
not
good
for
the
senate.
One.
C
H
Chairman
senator
fair
comment:
the
problem
you've
got
with
the
senate.
You've
moved
a
house
district
from
the
southwest
corner,
clear
across
I-80
to
laramie
county,
so
you
have
extra
half
a
senate
district
in
laramie,
county
you're,
short,
a
half
a
senate
district
in
the
southwest
corner.
H
H
Half
in
laramie
county
half
in
albany
county
one
one
senate
district.
That
apparently
would
be
the
interior
part
of
albany
county
and
then
another
senate
district,
that
is
half
in
albany,
county
and
half
in
carbon
county
and
then
another
one
that
is
half
in
carbon
county
half
in
sweetwater
county.
Just
just
to
get
over
to
where
you
need
the
other
half,
and
that
creates
a
bunch
of
districts
that
are
very
difficult.
H
To
represent
because
they're,
half
and
half
and
half,
whereas
the
other
plan
does
not
do
that
as
those
communities
self-contained,
and
I
think
I'm
not
quite
clear,
I
think
the
consequence
it
would
certainly
mean
that
a
bunch
of
senators
would
have
their
terms
abbreviated
and
have
to
run
in
the
middle
of
a
term.
H
There's
some
constitutional
problem
with
that,
if
you
can
avoid
it,
never
been
tested
in
the
courts,
so
there's
no
precedent
on
it,
but
clearly
the
constitution
does
say
it's
a
four-year
term.
You
would
get
opposition
from
that.
H
You
would
get
opposition
from
your
giving
creating
some
districts
that
are
very
difficult
to
represent
because
they're,
they're,
half
and
two
very
different
counties,
different
different
populations,
different
communities
and
those
are
difficult
to
represent,
and
I
think
I
also
looked
at
at
trying
to
go
north
and
roll
it
that
way
and
you
get
into
a
possibility
because
you,
if
you
stay
north,
you
mess
up
the
lander
area
considerable,
and
I
think
that
that
would
would
stop
you
from
from
getting
through
that
way.
You'd
it.
H
It
just
is
mechanically
a
different
thing
because
of
the
distances
between
where
you've
got
the
extra
half
district
needed
in
the
in
the
south
southeast
corner
and
the
existing
district
with
just
half
a
senate
senator
in
in
the
southwest
corner
and
mechanically.
That
gets
to
be
a
very
difficult
thing
to
do.
G
C
Mr
chairman,
wonderful
senator
scott
up
for
two
primary
issues.
There
one
is
constitutional
concerns
regarding
perhaps
you
know,
prematurely
ending
a
senator's
four-year
term.
Potentially
I
would
be
one
of
those
does
lso
have
an
answer
to
that
of
how
the
legislature
has
historically
handled
that
for
the
senate
in
four-year
terms
and
altering
a
senator's
district,
that's
midterm,
and
how
that
has
historically
been
handled.
Looking
for
answers
from
our
attorneys
actually
from
lso,
I
know
many
of
us
pretend
to
be
those
but
lso.
P
Mr
chairman,
senator
another
cut,
you
know,
I
think,
and
I
don't
know
historically
exactly
how
it's
gone.
I
do
know
we've
gotten
an
opinion
from
the
attorney
general
that
essentially
the
legislature
could
could
go
either
way.
It
could
require
the
full
senate
to
run
again
or,
as
has
happened
last
time,
just
kept
the
the
districts
the
same
and
only
half
the
senate
was
required,
but
it's
seemed
to
be
up
to
the
legislature
in
passing
the
bill.
They
would
require
the
full
senate
to
run
or
not.
Let.
Q
Me
throw
some
questions
at
you,
so,
mr
chairman,
I
just
want
to
tag
on
that
josh.
If
I
could.
Okay
go
heads
under
case.
The
question
was
brought
up
in
litigation
10
years
ago,
but
the
court
threw
that
piece
out.
I
think,
by
the
time
the
cart
court
got
to
it.
It
was.
It
was
a
mood
question
so,
but
that
was
asked
in
the
lawsuit
10
years
ago.
H
H
There
was
a
major
change
where
you
went
from
a
27-seat
senate
to
a
30-seat
senate
and
there
had
been
each
county
had
been
a
senate
district
with
with
extra
senators
in
laramie,
county
and
natrona
county,
went
to
a
district
system
and
that
forced
the
full
senate
to
run
again
clearly
the
meeting
the
federal
constitutional
mandate,
trump,
the
state
constitutional
provision
in
1990,
where
we
were
forced
to
single
member
district,
not
by
a
court
decision
but
by
governor's
veto.
H
H
G
So,
mr
chairman,.
Q
Sure
go
ahead,
senator
case
and
we're
gonna
get
you.
Mr
anderson
eventually
go
ahead.
Part
of
this
unknown
territory
as
well
is
in
this
cascading
of
senators,
which
I
actually
kind
of
like
this
plan,
and
I
and
I'm
okay
with
everybody
running
again.
Q
G
Mr
anderson,
any
more
background,
and
can
you
tell
me
what
year
that
attorney
general
opinion
came
out?
Is
it
a
recent
or
how
old
is
it.
P
P
You
know
I
think,
right
now
you
have
to
be
in
your
seat
on
january
1st.
In
this
case,
we
won't
even
have
potentially
these
seats
even
existing
at
on
january
1st,
and
so
we're
looking
into
you
know
what
we
can
find
on
that.
So
there
will
be
a
memo
forthcoming
on
on
this
issue,
but
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
we're.
We
are
considering
this.
Mr
chairman,.
C
Thank
you.
So
the
second
concern
that
I
have
that
I
heard
from
senator
scott
is
you
know
how
the
senate
districts
roll
out
so
chairman's
wanted.
Sir,
did
you
contemplate
the
senate
districts
and
if
so,
how
does
that
look
and
how
many
senate
seats
would
be
disrupted,
and
is
it
sincerely
the
house's
position
that
you
want
every
single
senator
to
run
again
and
you
think
that's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
state
at
this
time?
I've
certainly
heard
that
rumor
to
be
true,
but
let's
just
put
it
out
there.
G
Okay,
senator
another
guy,
I
feel
like
you're,
asking
from
my
opinion
my
perspective
yep.
So
on
my
plan.
Let
me
first
caveat
it
with.
I
saw
this
problem
the
first
week,
and
so
I
came
with
a
56-28
plan
that
wouldn't
have
this
problem
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there,
but
now
that
we
have
this
problem
and
we're.
G
Finally,
here
on
december
1st,
as
I
look
at
senate
districts-
and
I
look
at
the
map
that
I've
presented
that
the
counties
have
presented,
there
are
seven
different
counties
in
the
state
that
I
think-
and
I
don't
live
in
any
of
these
counties
besides
one
of
them.
G
So
on
that
personal
level,
I
think
every
senator
should
run
again,
because
I
think
several
legislators
and
senators
have
done
some
interesting
things
with
drawing
districts
to
keep
themselves
in
a
certain
district
in
my
own
community
and
trying
to
draw
maps
it.
We
found
it
very
difficult.
There
are
two
senators
who
live
19
blocks
from
each
other.
G
We've
tried
to
draw
maps
that
make
it
so
that
they
don't
have
to
be
districted
and
we're
still
working
on
that,
but
it's
tough,
and
so
I
do
think
when
you
look
at
15
senators
that
have
to
run
again
anyway
and
we're
looking
when
I
can
look
at
this
map
that
another
six
depending
on
the
northeast
corner
of
the
state.
G
If
we
redistrict
the
northeast
corner,
like
my
co-chairman
here,
actually
either
way,
you're
going
to
have
two
senators
when
we
read
nest,
look
a
little
funny
and
I'm
counting
22
of
the
30,
then
that
are
seven
in
competitive
districts
with
each
other
and
the
15
who
have
to
run.
It
would
make
sense
to
me
to
make
everyone
run
again.
Am
I
going
to
push
that?
I
don't
think
so.
G
I
think
I've
talked
with
my
co-chairman,
you
know,
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
that
say
if
we
can
draw
60
house
seats,
I
am
more
than
comfortable.
I'm
letting
the
senate
nest
their
districts
how
they
want,
and
I
will
stay
out
of
the
way
and
encourage
the
house
to
stay
out
of
the
way
on
how
the
senators
want
to
nest
house
districts.
G
But
it
is
difficult
for
me
to
look
at
the
map
and
look
at
the
population
changes
and
look
at
the
districts
that
have
come
in
and
say
it's
not
a
good
idea
for
about
five
of
our
state
senators
to
want
to
run
again,
and
at
that
point
it
just
seems
fair
to
make
everyone
run
again.
Yes,
in
my
opinion.
So
if
it
was
my
vote,
I'd
say
all
senators
run
again,
but
that's
my
opinion
and
I'm
one
and
I'm
not
going
to
push
it
at
any
great
level.
But
since
you
asked.
H
G
Them
together,
how
do
you
propose
to
put
them
together,
and
so
I
mean
there
are
two
ways-
and
I
mentioned
them
both
yesterday
right
so
way.
Number
one
in
my
opinion
is
because
I
continue
to
look
at
this
line
block.
It
makes
no
sense
to
share
senate
and
johnson
or
shared
it
right
because
it
ricochets
in
the
naturona.
G
So
your
two
points
from
east
to
west
in
the
state
would
be
natrona
having
to
co-share
two
senators
with
the
house
district
in
converse,
county
and
house
district
in
probably
northern
carbon,
so
that
would
be
option,
one
which
I
you
have
four
senators
in
the
toronto
county
now.
This
would
guarantee
three
and
have
a
you'd,
have
a
50
50
shot
at
two
more,
I
don't
know
if
that's
palatable
in
trona
county
or
not,
I
think,
as
neutron
county
grows,
the
weight
would
be
in
your
favor
over
10
years.
G
The
other
option
is
certainly
through
albany
county
splitting
the
albany
county
house
districts,
one
into
western
laramie
county
and
one
into
carbon,
and
that
would
be
interesting
depending
on
how
the
map
goes
with
laramie
county,
because
we
might
gain
an
11th
seat.
But
we
would
only
be
guaranteed
four
and
a
half
senators.
G
I
think
that's
a
compromise
that
the
push
came
to
shove.
I
would
be
okay
with
having
to
share
a
house
district
with
albany
county,
but
those
are
the
the
two
ways
that
I
can
see
it
working.
Is
you
either
have
to
share
that
connectivity
through
natrona
or
through
albany,
adding
a
21st
house
member
under
a
60
30
plan?
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and,
and
I
like
our
senators
in
detroit
county,
so
I
just
throwing
that
up,
but
my
question
is
for
you
as
mechanically:
do
you
anticipate
that
there
will
be
one
bill
that
starts
out
and
starts
in
one
house
and
then
crosses
over,
or
are
we
anticipating
that
there
will
be
multiple
bills,
starting
at
the
same
time?
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
G
Certainly,
in
conversations
with
leadership,
we
will
have
one
bill.
I
don't
think
any
decision
has
been
made
on
whether
we'll
start
in
the
house
or
the
senate.
It
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
have
more
than
one
bill,
because
the
other
body
would
probably
sit
on
it
and
we're
gonna.
I
mean
in
a
perfect
world,
we
wouldn't
go
to
conference
committee,
but
I'm
guessing
we'll
have
amendments,
so
my
hope
would
be
have
a
bill
that
this
committee
submits
to
the
legislature
the
month
in
advance.
G
G
They
may
several
legislators
own
more
than
one
house
and
they
may
make
some
decisions
on
where
they
might
want
to
live
and
run
from
what
I
understand
as
weird
as
that
sounds
especially
in
our
larger
communities.
So
we
will
have
a
bill
that
we
present
as
a
committee
bill,
go
to
one
of
the
two
houses
and
then
amendments
will
be
brought
in
both
houses.
I
don't
see
any
you
might
you
could
have
any
member
bring
a
bill
for
redistricting?
G
I
would
imagine,
but
it
would
have
to
pass
a
two-thirds
threshold
and
I'm
pretty
optimistic
that
the
legislature's
united
in
one
bill
joshua,
mr
chairman,.
P
Of
the
constitution,
speaker
just
reminded
me,
but
the
redistricting
bill
does
not
need
a
two-thirds
vote
for
introduction.
P
Q
Chairman
some
legislators
do
the
house
and
the
senate
completely
separately.
They
they
don't
have
nesting.
16
of
us
nests
are
the
50.
Q
Nesting,
I
think
it's
good
for
the
voters.
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
so,
but
one
way
that
you
could
conceivably
with
nesting,
you
need
to
have
one
bill
begin
in
one
house
and
proceed
to
the
other.
At
least
there
could
be
other
plans,
but
one
committee
bill
we'd
have
to
we
need
to.
If
you
didn't
have
nesting,
you
broke
from
nesting
and
you,
then
you
could
conceivably
let
each
house
decide
their
membership
in
two
separate
bills
and
go
from
there.
G
Q
Q
You
know,
and
here
I'm
the
poor
person
to
talk
I'm
up
for
election
anyway
and
half
the
senate.
Is
it's
the
people
that
aren't
up
for
election?
You
see
that
yeah.
You
see
that
so,
but
also
the
displacement
issue.
Q
So
I
mean
that
should
be
in
a
way
the
house
plans
fit
easier
than
the
senate
plan
right
because
but
we've
all
just
talked
about
the
house
plan
so
far,
and
so
you
got
this
pressure
cooker
kind
of
thing
hanging
over
everybody
and
I'm
just
saying:
let
the
let
the
gas
out
and
have
a
free-for-all
in
the
senate
side
to
sort
it
all
out.
N
Senator
bonner
and
then
we'll
go
to
repton
again,
but
go
ahead.
Okay!
Thank
you,
mr
man.
I
think
that
is
useful,
but
I
think
certain
other
cost
suggestion
is
useful
to
be
more
specific,
why
we
have
problems
with
certain
maps
and-
and
you
know
be
be
specific
and
be
honest
and
yeah.
I
guess
piggybacking
off
the
previous
speaker.
You
know
I
did
mention
the
the
anger,
the
disillusionment
in
goshen
county,
due
to
the
way
that
that
county
got
split
up
the
last
minute.
N
I
just
have
to
point
out
that
that
was
the
result
of
two
senators
being
in
the
same
district.
There's
a
reason
why
that
had
to
happen
at
the
last
minute.
It's
because
this
committee
10
years
ago
thought
that
would
be
a
good
idea,
and
so,
when
I
look
at
say
app
one,
I'm
concerned
about
that
exact,
same
situation
playing
out
again
between
laramie
and
goshen
county
or,
alternatively,
we
have
another
senate
district.
N
Based
off
my
personal
experience
and
experienced
my
constituents,
it
goes
from
douglas
to
devil's
tower,
which
is
completely
disenfranchises
thousands
of
people
in
a
community
that
is
in
fact
growing.
Maybe
not
that
has
doesn't
have
a
population
of
some
areas
down
here,
but
it
is
growing.
N
So
I
just
want
to
be
very
specific
with
those
concerns
it
does
come
down
to
the
senate.
I
think
house
we
have
to
have
the
discussion
on
the
house
districts
first
as
a
practical
matter,
but
the
other
day
we
have
to
have
a
plan,
that's
going
to
work
for
both
chambers.
N
I
think
that's
a
senator
scott's
point
too,
and
so
just
want
to
be
very
clear
why
I
have
a
you
know
why
I
just
can't
quite
support
this
plan,
one
which
I
have
to
say
has
my
name
on
it,
but
that
doesn't
have
any
of
the
lines
I
drew
on
that.
So
just
just
so
we're
clear,
but
so
I
I
think
that's
a
useful
exercise
to
say
specifically
what
our
concerns
are.
That's
the
only
way
to
move
forward
with
a
compromise.
G
And
real
quick,
we
probably
for
the
three
compilation
maps
you
probably
should
just
have
my
name
on
the
first
one
and
then
maybe
chairman
driscoll's
name
on
on
the
second,
so
yeah,
because
I
don't
want
members
of
the
public.
I
mean
because
truly
senator
boner
was
not
completely
involved
in
the
compilation.
It
was
a
plan
compilation
without
his
involvement
or
consent
represent.
B
P
H
And
in
fact,
in
1992
it
was
one
of
those
that
passed
his
sponsor's
name
was
it
was
it
was,
it
was
mine,
it
didn't
have
any
my
stuff
in
it,
but
what
happened?
Was
the
governor
vetoed
the
committee
bill
for
not
being
single
member
district
and
we,
I
had
a
backup
bill
in
that's
what
passed.
H
So,
yes,
that
did
that.
That
is
the
way
it
happened.
It
theoretically
could
happen
again.
That
was
before.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
That
was
a
great
segue
as
we
move
forward.
One
of
the
things
that
will
be
going
on,
in
my
mind,
is
one
of
the
strengths
that
we
have
here
in
wyoming
with
our
citizen
legislature
is
that
we
do
have
people
who
are
willing
to
stay
and
bring
back
that
experience
and
that
institutional
knowledge,
and
I
know
that
we
heard
the
term
free
for
all
and
massive
well.
M
Q
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
my
question:
I
don't
know
whether
it
goes
to
josh
or
the
committee,
but
if
say,
we
had
a
scenario
where
the,
where
all
the
senators
had
to
rerun.
What
do
we
do
about
those
that
still
have
two
to
three
years
left
on
their
term,
because
you
couldn't
start
everybody
over?
I'm
assuming
you
wouldn't
start
everybody
over
from
scratch
with
four
years,
because
they
they
stagger
now
so
is
what
does
that
look
like,
because.
Q
So,
mr
chairman,
we
had
lots
the
first
time,
so
there
was
lots
drawn
so
basically
heads
it's
even
districts,
tails,
it's
odd
districts,
you
flip
a
coin
in
some
official
manner.
It's
done
by
lot
and
the
the
some
senators
will
run
and
have
two-year
terms.
Some
senators
will
run
and
have
four-year
terms.
You
may
have
to
do
it
again
in
10
years.
G
So,
and
I
would
just
say
the
issue
that
we
also
have
not
talked
about
when
it
comes
to
senate
districts
and
who
runs
again
is
right.
Now
it's
based
on
the
senate
district
number,
and
so,
as
we
move
some
senate
districts
around
depending
on
the
number
you're
in
you
may
have
a
necessity
to
run,
and
so
I
haven't
even
thought
about
that
until
just
now
that
there's
going
to
be
another
game
on
what
the
numbered
senate
seats
are,
because
that
will
let.
P
G
Stay
in
and
what
people
will
have
to
run
and
only
do
a
two-year
term.
So
there's
a
lot
of
complications
with
this
plan
and
the
senate
on
how
we
nest
it
and
what
it
looks
like,
and
I
think
if
we
just
say
everyone
runs
again.
It
takes
away
that
layer
of
another
layer
of
gamesmanship
but
again
I'll.
Leave
that
to
the
senate.
Remember
senator
boehner.
N
Hey,
mr,
I
think
it's
worth
pointing
out
since
basically
like
civics
101,
there's
a
reason
why
we
have
four
year
terms
in
the
senate
right,
there's
the
house
supposed
to
be
or
more
responsive
to
the
people
instead
of
supposed
to
be
more
longer,
looking
more
less
concerned
right
with
the
passions
of
the
moment
and
more
concerned
with
long-term,
but
the
long-term
viability
of
the
state
right.
So
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
convenience
for
our
senators,
it's
there's
a
reason
why
it
is
the
way
it
is.
N
I
think,
especially
now
where
there
is
you
know
some
folks
might
say
we're
going
through
a
populist
moment
right
now.
Maybe
it's
not
a
good
time
to
say
every
senator
around
again
so,
just
like
to
you
know
remind
everybody,
there's
a
reason
why
we,
our
two
chambers,
work
the
way
they
do.
It's
not
a
matter
of
the
avoiding
the
inconvenience
of
running
again,
there's
an
actual
reason
for
it.
G
In
other
news,
I
need
to
be
gone
by
six
o'clock
tonight
because
I'm
teaching
my
political
science
class
on
that
topic,
1000
community
college,
all
right
any
other
statements
to
before
we
kick
it
off.
So
it
is.
Q
You
know,
for
example,
yeah.
If
you
have
two
years
left
in
your
term
and
things
get
moved
around,
you
get
you
kind
of
serve
out
the
two
years
for
that
area
and
and
then
you'd
have
to
stand
for
election
in
the
new
area.
It
might.
Even
if
you,
if
you
want
to
think
outside
the
box,
I
mean
we
now
have
commissioners
that
can
or
county
officials
that
are
actually
outside
their
districts
or
outside
a
district.
Q
P
Mr
chairman,
and
and
and
yeah
sorry
for
the
confusion
there
and
yeah
and
yeah
I
was
trying
to,
and
maybe
didn't
do
a
good
job
of
saying
that,
but
that
was
that
attorney
general
opinion
kind
of
said,
and
I
tried
to
say
that
said
you
could
do
it
either
way
you
could
allow
for
a
holdover
of
senators
or
you
could
require
them
all
to
run.
So
a
legislature
has
a
pretty
good
ability
to
to
handle
this
any
way
they
see
fit.
You
know
it
gets
complicated.
P
Mr
chairman,
and
you
know
if
you
start
adding
districts
are
taking
districts
away,
but
but
there
is
a
wide
latitude
we,
but
we
believe
with
the
legislature
to
do
this.
G
So
committee,
I
think
what
I'm
going
to
propose
is:
let's
take
a
15-minute
break.
I
know
there
would
be
some
conversation
going
on
and
maybe
a
direction
forward
today,
we'll
talk
more
on
just
what
some
possibilities
are,
and
I
know
some
conversations
because
you
are
all
texting
back
and
forth
and
looking
at
each
other
with
interesting
looks
that
maybe
it's
just
best.
We
take
15
minutes.
G
G
All
right,
so
we
back
live
again.
Miss
stop.
It
great
committee.
Welcome
back
after
the
break
hope
we
all
had
some
exercise
and
some
conversations
so
we're
at
the
point
we
have
another.
I
don't
know
45
minutes
on
this
topic.
If
we
want
to
continue
to
proceed
on
it,
there
are
again
three
options
before
us
and
then
a
fourth
option
that
represents
discussed
regarding
northeast
wyoming
and
then
certainly
the
fifth
more
conceptual
options
under
boner
discussed
regarding
I'll
just
call
the
albany
county
transfer
for
all
places.
G
H
My
thought
at
this
point
it
is
strictly
my
thought,
is
that
what
we
ought
to
do
is
pick
at
least
the
three
variations
we
have
here,
get
somebody
charged
on
each
one
of
them
with
cleaning
up
the
minor
discrepancies,
where
you
know
somebody's
over
by
or
under
by
less
than
100
people
that
we
have
several
of
those
and
the
issue
of
how
do
you
handle
the
rock
river
area,
which
is
slightly
more
than
that,
because
I
think
I
think
we're
very
close
on
that
and
get
a
senate
plan
that
corresponds
to
each
each
one
of
them,
because
that
does
seem
to
be.
H
I
think
you
can't
just
simply
say
we'll:
do
the
house
and
then
allocate
nested
areas
allocate
districts
to
nested
areas?
I
don't
think
that's
gonna
work.
I
think
you
need
to
see
an
actual
plan
and
come
back
in.
H
And
somebody
mentioned
the
15th
of
december
close
enough
a
week
or
two
to
get
it
done
week,
10
days
to
get
it
done
and
then
avoid
the
holidays.
H
That
would
be
my
suggestion
at
this
point
that
I
think
we're
very
close
to
having,
but
we
don't
have
any
of
the
plans
that
are
quite
to
the
point
where
we
could
vote
on
them
at
this
point
and
we
don't
have
the
senate
plan
to
go
with
them.
M
E
Repre,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
blueprint
going
forward
and
if
we
look
at
the
plans
that
are
before
us
right
now,
the
one
with
the
least
number
of
districts
out
of
deviation
is
the
first
plan
that
we're
looking
at.
E
E
This
is
one
of
your
plan
lack
of
a
better
term
first,
one
that
we
been
considering
and
move
forward
with
that.
G
Okay,
so
the
motion
would
be
to
I
guess,
put
on
the
table
plan
one.
I
don't
want
to
call
it
the
answer
plan
second,
obey
nether
cut
and
then
we'll
have
some.
N
Ahead,
okay,
yeah
just
to
point
out,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
remember
that
we
already
did
vote
on
a
plan
that
moya
understands
already
two-way.
That's
the
you
know
the
scott
plan
as
it's
been
called.
So
this
is
a
motion
to
sort
of
change.
Gears
change
horses
here
to
be
clear.
You
know
what
is
what
is
now
the
sponsor
plan,
and
so
I
you
know
once
again,
like
I
said
yesterday,
push
back
on
that
false
narrative
that
we
don't
have
a
plan.
We
do.
We
have
been
working
on
a
plan
for
months.
N
That's
basically
2a
here
as
it's
labeled
here
and
I
just
think
that's
a
much
better
template
to
move
forward.
Yes,
it's
not
perfect,
but
that's
why
we're
going
to
keep
on
working
on
it?
Certainly
you
know.
Whichever
way
we
choose
we're
gonna
have
the
same
discussions.
I
think,
but
I
think
for
continuity's
sake,
especially
this
is
very
complex
process
emotionally
charged
process.
I
just
think
that
forces
a
halfway
is
a
mistake
so
on
and
against
emotion,.
G
All
right,
representative
yen
and
I
know
it's
in
a
career-
you
might
be
new
horses
on
the
in
the
barn
here
so
we'll
see
where
we
are
senator
case.
Mr
chairman.
Q
I
I
I
support
this
conceptually
to
get
us
started,
but
I
I'm
hoping
we
could
do
some
friendly
modification
a
little
bit,
so
the
one
friendly
modification
is
to
have
northeastern
wyoming.
Are
you
I
just
want
to
make
sure?
Are
you
amending
I'm
asking
for
a
friend?
Q
Okay,
so
was
I
just
saying
if
we
could
do
the
your
your
motion,
talk
to
you
in
your
second
and
kind
of
expand
a
little
bit
to
allow
more
flexibility
in
northeast
wyoming
for
those
folks
to
get
together
and
have
another
fight
at
the
apple,
so
niagara
western
converse,
campbell
and
crook
get
together,
and
I'm
thinking
that
the
one
that's
makes
probably
the
most
sense,
is
what
senator
boner
brought
yesterday
kind
of
along
those
lines.
Q
Q
I
hope
that
somebody
would
be
favorable
to
asking
fremont
county
to
fix
the
congruity
issue,
but
let
them
fix
it
themselves
and
really
I'm
going
to
stay
out
of
it
too.
It's
folks
in
riverton
that
need
to
fix
that,
but
it
needs
to
be
fixed
with
those
island
areas
if
all
the
rest
of
state
is
coming
into
deviation.
That
would
be
the
goal
we'd
be
in
deviation.
Q
We
have
to
tackle
the
basin
as
well
and
I
would
propose
that
we
look
at
accommodating
the
basin
lack
of
people
with
a
combination
which
includes
the
yellowstone
park
missing
piece.
That's
about
100
people.
We
understand
also,
I
think,
basically,
the
goal
for
the
basin
would
be
to
get
them
just
below
the
minimums
and
realize
we're
kicking
it
down
a
little
bit,
but
at
least
we'd
be
below
the
minimums
so
below
minus
five
or
above
minus
five.
Q
Q
They'll
kill
me
when
I
get
back
there,
but
I
think
the
trona
county
has
a
role
to
do
that
too,
and
with
that
combination,
and
possibly
even
northeast
sheridan
county
or
northwest
sheridan
county.
Possibly
so
we
throw
that
into
the
mix
and
we
send
it
back
out
to
the
folks
to
figure
these
things
out.
Then
the
north,
the
northeast,
the
basin
and-
and
we
also
then
tackle
the
senate
districts.
G
E
Was
that
we
would
use
this
as
a
as
a
base
plan
and
then
would
be
glad
to
accept
amendments
to
this
proposal,
but
if
you
want
to
include
that
all
in
the
motion
that
I'm
fine
with
that
too
either
way,
it
doesn't
matter
to
me,
but
I
do
think,
are
some
of
those
problems
that
need
to
be
fixed.
We
need
to
fix
the
basin,
we
need
to
iron
out
a
compromise
in
the
northeast
area.
G
Second,
is
that,
oh,
whether
that's
part
of
the
motion,
or
then
by
amendment
is
independent
different,
I
mean,
as
a
chairman,
I
think
it'd
be
a
lot
better
to
kind
of
have
the
statement
plan
and
then
I
actually
like,
I
think,
every
one
of
those
amendments.
But
I
would
rather
them
be
amendments
and
a
very
conceptual
if
that's
okay
senator
case,
but
let
me
check
with
a.
P
G
Is
that
okay,
second
and
mover
if
we
just
move
the
amendment
you
brought
and
then,
if
that
passes,
not
sure
if
it
will,
but
if
it
does,
then
I
I
do
believe
there
are
probably
four
or
five
other
motions
to
kind
of
change
up
that
map
if
that
passes,
so
senator
scott
and
I'll
go
to
senator
bonner,
okay,
mr
chairman,.
H
All
right
was
going
to
essentially
speak
in
favor
of
what
senator
case
wants
to
do,
recognizing
that
fixing
the
basin
will
involve
coming
into
my
senate
district,
and
I
don't
like
it,
but
I
know
it
except
it
is
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
do
to
get
something
done.
H
I
think
if
we
can
solve
all
the
other
problems,
that
what
we
might
do
is
use
the
fixed
basin
plan,
in
deviation
as
a
backup
to
if
a
court
finds
that
what
we've
done
doesn't
meet
a
constitutional
muster.
That
makes
some
sense
too.
H
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
proceed
on
that
basis,
for
both
the
senate,
one
compilation
and
the.
H
Comparable
one
on
the
the
that
doesn't
have
the
laramie
county
change
to
it.
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
them
both,
because
I
think
that
if
we
just
just
look
at
the
one,
it
simply
isn't
going
to
work
in
the
senate.
G
Okay,
so
probably
for
process
reasons,
let's
go
with
the
current
motion
and
then,
if
there's
another
motion
to
have
both
plans,
you
know
out
there
at
the
same
time
for
counties
to
work
on
one
or
the
other
on
how
those
would
work.
I
think
that
would
be
the
appropriate
motion
to
take
second
follow-up
you're
wanting
to
pass
we're
going
to
do
one
plan
and
then
talk
about
doing
a
possibility
of
a
second
or
I
believe
so.
G
The
motion
that
repton
of
error
made
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
was
for
plan
one
right
now
to
move
forward
and
no
mend
off
of,
and
I
certainly
believe
if
that
doesn't
pass,
we'll
talk
about
plan
two
that
does
plan
does
pass.
We
can
still
talk
about
plan
two
and
see
if
there's
agreement
from
the
committee
to
have
two
plans
out
there.
If
that
staying
in
the
current
motion,
I
understand
what
you're
saying
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
on
the
current
motion
center
boner
and
then
rip
some
clawson.
N
Just
question
about
this
plan,
except
I
probably
need
a
refresher,
just
wanna,
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
just
as
it
relates
to
the
east
side
of
the
state.
It
looks
like
there's
11
representatives
between
in
laramie
county,
which
apparently
also
about
2
000
people
from
goshen
county
that
gets
put
in
with
whatever
counties.
Is
that
correct
and
a
follow-up
to
that
would
be
what
would
happen
if
we
just
kind
of
kept.
Those
11
represents
completely
within
laramie
county.
G
G
That
being
said,
if
this
plan
does
move
forward,
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
anybody
else
myself,
but
it
would
be
amenable
to
alterations
and
amendments
of
this
plan
because
I'm
well
aware
of
the
sentiments
of
certain
counties
north
of
laramie
county
on
their
thoughts-
and
I
agree-
I
wouldn't
say
I
agree
with
them
necessarily
but
I'm
open
to
certain
amendments.
But
to
answer
your
questions
about
20
400.
Last
time
I
looked
goshen
county
residents
on
this
plan
and
with
house
district
10.
Okay
and
thank
you,
but.
N
Sherman,
I
agree
with
what's
our
case,
that
we
just
need
some
flexibility
and
that's
why
I've
been
so
resistant
to
any
incursions
into
region,
seven,
because
we
have
a
serious
problem
still
in
region
six,
and
so
just
where
I'm
at
you
know.
I
I'm
probably
still
not
going
to
vote
for
this,
but
you
know
as
far
as
amendments
go,
I
think
it
is
important
to
not
and
I'll
bring
emotion.
N
Maybe
whenever
that's
appropriate
to
just
say
you
know
not
make
a
decision
one
way
or
another
as
a
committee
as
to
what
lines
are
being
drawn
in
region
six
or
region,
seven,
but
just
give
general
direction
to
both
those
regions
to
one
remain
holes.
So
that
means
all
of
goshen
county
has
to
stay
within
region
seven
and
two
to
go
back
and
start
over,
and
we
really
do
need
that
flexibility.
So,
and
I
I
said,
if
there's
11
reps
in
army
county,
that's
I
mean
that's
and
it
comes
from
the
southwest
part
of
the
state.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
for
just
for
processes,
sake
and
thoughtfulness
here
I
think
we
would
have
less
amendments
in
the
either
probably
the
two
plan
than
we
would
in
the
one
plan,
because
the
amendments
that
need
to
go
into
the
two
plan
are
already
in
the
or
into
the
one
plant
are
already
in
the
two.
R
Up
yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
quick
question
for
the
chair
with
senator
case's
four
amendments
adopted
or
were
they
just
suggestions?
I
don't
disagree
with
him.
I
just
don't
just
need
to
know
where
I'm
at.
G
There
are
currently
suggestions,
written
of
grier,
that
I
asked
him
to
make
his
amendments.
Should
this
plan
or
the
other
plan,
or
both
plans
go
forward,
but
right
now
it's
just
as
you
see
on
the
website
that
was
sent
to
you
as
well
compilation
one
and
then
I
do
believe,
at
least
as
a
chairman,
I'm
going
to
entertain
several
amendments
and
motions
for
amendments
of
that
plan,
in
line
with
what
senator
case
has
asked
for.
But
the
motion
before
you
is
just
on
starting
work
on
compilation,
one
to
be
amended.
Okay,
so
then.
R
Mr
chairman,
I
I
agree
with
representative
heir
that
we've
got
to
have
a
framework
to
work
from
and
something
in
front
of
us.
I
also
heard
what
senator
scott
said
and
agree
with
him
in
terms
of.
R
Can
we
get
this
to
to
as
this
roadmap
right
now
and
then
come
back
and
god
forbid
another
meeting,
but
another
meeting
in
a
couple
of
weeks
with
some
of
these
issues,
hashed
out,
for
example,
going
back
to
senator
case's
comments
about
the
basin
is
yes,
I
think
we
could
work
on
some
numbers
coming
with
all
of
yellowstone
and
yes
to
the
degree
that
it
makes
sense
out
of
fremont
county
work
on
some
of
those
numbers
you
know
coming
out
of
certain
county
is
very,
very
problematic,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
little
bit
more
time
and
so
going
back
to
again.
R
G
G
So
it
will
put
one
map
on
the
table
and
then
I
believe
from
what
I'm
hearing
there
might
be
a
motion
to
have
the
second
map
concurrently
go
with
the
first
map
out
to
the
counties.
But
the
motion
at
hand
is
for
map
one
to
be
put
on
the
table
to
be
sent
out
for
discussion
by
this
committee
in
the
state,
and
then
there
may
be
a
subsequent
motion
on
putting
two
maps
out
senator
cop.
Mr.
C
I
am
not
clear
as
to
the
hesitation
for
us
and
I'm
I'm
obviously
interpreting
this
differently
of
where
everyone
is
desiring,
something
to
get
their
arms
around,
that
we
can
start
working
and
digging
in
I'm
in
fully
support
of
moving
this
bill
draft
forward.
This
map
fully
contemplating
that
there
will
be
significant
amendments
up
until
the
last
day
in
the
budget
session
right,
I'm
also
in
full
support
of
of
another
map
for
us
to
look
and
compare
at
you
know.
C
So
if
there
is
another
motion
to
support
a
different
map
and
for
this
committee
to
work
two
maps,
I
think
we
can
manage
that
and
I
think
it
might
be
beneficial
to
see
how
those
different
maps
could
be.
You
know
likely
incorporated
into
one
final
map
for
this
committee
to
consider
so
I,
but
but
right
now
I
mean
it's
really
hard
for
us
to
work
these
and
we're
fighting
over.
C
I
think
concepts
that
that
aren't
being
asked
to
be
voted
on
in
this
moment.
So
right
now
we
just
need
to
get
something
to
work.
Otherwise
we're
gonna
keep
spinning.
So
I
don't
think
that
there's
any
harm
in
voting.
I
don't
think
that
you're
committing
to
a
position.
Let's
get
it
done
and
stop
stop
spinning.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
wanted
to
actually
senator
boehner
pretty
much
answered
some
of
my
concerns
with
his
question
to
you,
but
just
actually,
after
hearing
senator
nethercott,
I'm
prepared
to
move
forward
with
two
different
versions.
A
That
way
we
can
have
two
options
for
two
different
solutions
for
northeast
that
maybe
we
can
get
some
better
compromise
in
some
of
these
more
difficult
areas
if
we
have
two
different
maps,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
my
area,
because
it's
so
adamant,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
my
area
has
that
flexibility,
that
in
either
way
that
we
can
do
some
amendments,
and
that
was
already
alleviated
by
previous
comments.
So
I
would
support
two
maps.
C
C
They
are
holding
true
to
that
position
and
we
have
heard
you
loud
and
clear,
and
we
will
take
that
into
consideration
so
again
voting
on
version.
One
does
not
mean
that
goshen
county
will
be
combined
with
laramie
county.
It's
just
a
starting
place
for
us
to
continue
those
conversations.
S
N
Senator
boner,
oh
mr
chairman,
I'd
like
to
move
in
amendment
that
that's
okay
with
you
on.
What's
that,
I
like.
N
Certainly
can
okay
or
maybe
it's
a
friendly
minute,
but
I
thought
the
direction
was
that
we're
going
to
have
amendments
and
not
you
know
actual
man
is
not
friendly,
but
so
that's
what
we're
doing
so
anyways.
I
moved
that
in
this
map,
one
that
we
keep
region
seven
and
region
six
I'll
keep
region
seven
whole.
N
So
I
basically
remove
the
two
thousand
people
are
going
from
goshen
county
to
laramie
county
and
just
keep
region.
Seven
holes.
That's
the
first
part
of
the
motion.
Second
part
is
that
we
don't
take
a
position,
any
lines
on
region,
six
or
region,
seven
that
just
be
a
blank
slate
and
we
go
back
and
and
further
discuss
with
those
two
regions.
N
So
that's
the
motion,
like
I
said
it's.
If
I
get
a
second
I'll
explain
it,
but
we
do
need
the
flexibility
and
with
the
laramie
county,
having
11
legislators,
which
I'm
okay
with
that.
That
gives
us
the
flexibility
we
need,
but
it
needs
to
be
done.
You
know
based
off
the
conversations
of
the
region,
six
region,
seven
and
probably
not
coming
from
a
you
know.
We
just
have
that
flexibility.
N
We
can't
have
any
incursions
into
into
the
region,
so
that's
the
motion
and
that's
the
reason
for
it,
and
it's
just
you
know.
We
really
do
need
that
flexibility.
G
I'm
going
to
let
the
record
reflect
that
replica
duncan
from
goshen
county
second.
Is
that,
but
you
have
multiple
people
who
would
like
to
second
that,
and
so
let
me
make
sure
I
understand
the
motion.
N
Or
just
leave
it
open
just
leave
it
open,
no
just
leave
region,
six
reason,
seven
open,
because
that's
what
we're
going
to
do,
anyways,
no
matter
what
happens
here,
we're
going
to
go
back
we're
going
to
rehash
basically
the
holiest
part
of
the
state,
except
for
raymond
albany
county.
So
that's
what's
happening.
You
know,
no
matter
what
and-
and
I
just
like
to,
if
I
could,
if
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
support
this,
like
I
said,
I
have
no
problem
with
merriman
county
having
11
representatives
so
long
as
we
keep
region
seven
whole.
Q
N
Q
N
Q
N
We
could
go
with
the
the
first.
Q
So
I
think
that's
just
too
limiting
in
a
way
you
know
I
so
that
I
I
that's
kind
of
like
saying
the
same
thing
with
the
basin
you're
only
going
to
go
to
this
direction
or
whatever
you
know,
I
don't
I
don't
know.
I
like
the
idea,
given
flexibility
for
those
regions
to
get
together.
I
just
hard
stop
on
whether
you're
gonna
exchange
between
laramie
and
goshen
county,
I
think,
is
inappropriate.
M
M
M
I
would
just
well
I'll
be
against
them
amendment
simply
because
I
think
what
we
should
be
thinking
about
right
now
is
just
adopting
a
map.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
senator
boner.
N
Okay,
mr
chairman,
yeah,
to
answer
your
representative
bar's
question
to
address
senator
kasich's
concern.
No,
this
doesn't
preclude
the
two
counts
working
together.
It's
just
a
starting
point
and
frankly,
you
know
like
I
said
we
need
some
flexibility
to
deal
with
the
challenges
we
have
in
northeast
part
of
the
state.
We
take
population
out
of
region,
seven
that
makes
it
harder
to
do.
In
fact,
you
know
I
the
reason
why
I'm
able
to
support
larry
county
getting
11
representatives
is.
N
We
may
very
well
have
to
do
the
opposite
right,
which
is
to
take
you
know
eleven
or
twelve
hou
or
one
to
twelve,
two
thousand
people
out
in
goshen
county,
or
I
count
here
somewhere
and
put
them
into
every
county.
You
know
we
might
need
that
flexibility
as
we
deal
with
the
challenges
of
the
northeast
part
of
the
state.
So
it's
not
something
I
you
know.
N
I
just
want
to
keep
the
options
open,
but
for
now
I
think
you're
limiting
our
ability
in
the
eastern
part
of
the
state
to
come
to
an
agreement
when
you're
taking
population
out
of
region
7..
That's
the
reason
for
it.
It's
not!
It's
not
a
you
know,
it's
not
a
hard
fast.
No,
it's
just
recognizing.
We
do
have
a
challenging
situation
and
we
need
flexibility
to
deal
with
it.
G
Okay,
so
the
current
the
current
motion
is
divided
and
from
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
it's
giving
laramie
county
11
reps
within
laramie
county
and
then
letting
what
are
now
region,
six
and
seven
work
together
to
figure
out
a
plan
that
works
for
those
seven
counties
representative
and
make
sure
I
have
that
correct.
Okay,
open
again.
P
C
Chairman
again,
I'm
confused
by
this
process.
We
are
going
to
amend
this
until
the
11th
hour
right
and
so
right
now
we're
just
trying
to
get
a
starting
place.
So
I'm
willing
to
vote
I
to
get
a
starting
place
on
anything,
but
I
think
it's
reasonable.
I'm
I'm
prepared
to
call
question
on
boner's
amendment
and
vote
just
so
we
can
get
going
right
so
again
for
members
of
the
public.
C
So
I
don't
know
if
we
think
that
we're
going
to
you
know
it's
going
to
be
concrete
today
we
want
it
to
be
over,
but
it's
not
going
to
be,
and
so
you
know,
I
think,
that's
just
the
the
strategy
that
we
should
take
is
let's
get
started
with
something.
We
really
understand
how
we're
amending
and
can
feel
those
consequences
more
thoughtfully.
Mr.
I
Life:
let's
go
to
representative
blackburn,
mr
chairman,
senator
so
you're,
not
you're,
not
wanting
to
have
any
amendments
on
this
map
until
we've
got
the
map
and
then,
as
we
work
it
through.
The
next
few
weeks,
is
that
what
you're
saying
no
amendments
today.
C
Mr
chairman,
no
I
support
the
amendments
I'm
going
to
vote
aye
for
senator
boehner's
amendment
and
I
think
the
closer
it
is
to
consensus
from
the
committee
the
better,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
not
trying
to
get
too
much
in
the
minutia
at
this
point.
Recognizing
that
there's
a
lot
now
that
we've
narrowed
down,
where
I
think
the
primary
concerns
within
the
state
are
campbell
county,
the
laramie
goshen
county
relationship,
you
know
and
then
the
bighorn
basin.
We
can
really
just
start
focusing
in
on
those
pieces.
C
G
Okay,
question
being
called:
I
guess
we
can
raise
your
hands
online
and
we'll
just
raise
our
hands
all
those
in
favor
of
state.
Well
of
the
amendment
from
senator
boehner
on
to
the
compilation,
one,
please
rich
rand
for
the
first
division,
four:
five:
six:
seven:
shall
we
eight
nine
ten?
Okay,
that
division
passes
second
division,
ripped
on
a
boner
or
senator
boner.
My
apologies.
N
Devote
me
already,
depending
on
who
you
are
but
yeah
just
once
again.
The
second
division
is
just
to
recognize
that
you
know
I
once
again,
these
lines
are
gonna,
be
very
controversial.
The
northeast
part
of
the
state,
I
think,
it'd
be
best.
If
we,
the
committee,
basically
doesn't
take
a
position
in
that
disagreement
today
and
just
give
us
a
chance
to
go
back
and
figure
something
out
the
best
we
can.
I
think
we're
getting
close
frankly,
but
we
just-
I
don't
think
it's
proven
for
the
committee
to
make
a
side
today.
C
Have
a
quick
comment,
but
something
you're
ready
to
vote
and
vote.
I
I
support
that,
but
I
do
think
that
history
has
taught
us
that
there
has
been
no
consensus
and
therefore
they
brought
this
problem
to
us
today.
The
likelihood
of
that
being
resolved
is
probably
minor
and
I
would
suggest
a
plan
that
is
the
least
likely
to
result
in
litigation
or
delete.
The
least
deviations
is
probably
the
best
course
and
the
safest
course
for
us
to
take,
so
I
would
be
comfortable
with
taking
that
course
that
has
the
least
deviation
to
it.
C
G
The
appropriate
time,
all
right,
so
what
we're
voting
on
is
allowing
that
seven
county
region
to
come
back
together,
work
as
a
larger
region
outside
of
laramie
county,
which
I
think
you've
benefited
our
county
more
than
we
could
ask
for
possibly
out
of
spite
yeah,
but
for
those
seven
counties
to
work
together
on
coming
up
with
10
house
members
and
the
plan
has
to
be
within
deviation.
G
H
G
Technically,
representative
error:
it
was
your
motion,
your
thoughts
on
this
being
the
exclusive
plan
going
forward.
Now
my
thought
was
just
so.
You
know
that
we
were
probably
likely
to
have
another
motion,
but
if
we
settled
the
disputes
on
where
we're
going,
maybe
we
don't
need
two
plans
out
there,
but
as
a
maker
of
the
motion,
your
thoughts
well,
I.
E
Might
do
in
subsequent
motion,
we
can
go
for
another
map
that
that's
certainly
off
an
option.
That's
open
my
option.
My
motion
was
to
go
forward
with
this
plan
as
a
blueprint
going
forward
and
if
we
amend
it,
I
anticipate
amendments.
I
want
amendments.
I
think
you
know.
We've
got
problems
in
the
bighorn
basin.
We've
got
problems
in
ocean
crook,
county
area,
but
we
need
to
start
from
some
base
plan
and
that's
that's
what
my
motion
was
that.
G
G
G
G
C
You,
mr
chairman,
I
would
move
for
the
elimination
of
the
island
areas
within
fremont
county.
I
do
think
that's
inconsistent
with
how
the
map
works,
and
I
think
that's
too
difficult
for
senators
and
representatives
in
that
area
to
have
island
pockets
and
that
it
needs
to
be
contiguous
throughout
for
districts,
and
that
is
consistent.
That
way.
G
Arguably
unbalanced,
I
think,
was
a
word
I
heard
four
times
yesterday,
but
for
fremont
county
has
to
not
have
the
current
makeup
of
of
islands
in
the
middle
west
of
virginia
okay,
discussion.
Q
G
Q
Mr
chairman,
I
would
like,
when
we
get
done
with
this
plan,
that
it
be
within
deviation
across
the
state
plus
or
minus
five,
and
so
the
only
elephant
in
the
room
is
still
the
basin
and
if
we
just
say,
let's
require
everybody
to
be
in
deviation,
that'll
force,
my
county,
so
some
parts
of
teton,
county
and
sports
of
natrona
county
to
come
together
to
help
get
a
plan
for
the
basin.
Q
H
This
is
this
is
what
we
would
do
if
we
had
to
stay
within
deviation
and
then
we
can
look
at
it
and
say
that
just
disenfranchises
too
many
people
and
and
go
back
to
a
a
milder
version
that
that
doesn't
disenfranchise
something.
R
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
I
I
mean
I'm
gonna
obviously
oppose
a
motion.
I
think
there
are
some
things
we
can
do,
but
I
short
of
picking
up
six
to
seven
hundred
votes
in
fremont
county.
R
You're
not
going
to
get
to
to
minus
five
plain
and
simple,
and-
and
you
know
I
it's
been
clearly
expressed
to
me
by
the
folks
from
fremont
county
that
that
that
is
not
palatable
to
them
and
it
does
disenfranchise
them,
and
you
know
we
just
voted
to
eliminate
what
were
dubbed
islands
in
the
current
plan.
But
what?
What?
What
is
the
difference
between
you
know?
A
half,
a
mile
of
roadway
and
70
miles
of
mountains
to
get
to
get
to
natrona
county
with
without
a
paved
road
yeah?
It
may
touch.
R
R
You
know
to
do
this
to
force
people
to
do
something
that
disenfranchises
voters
in
in
the
areas
that
surround
the
bighorn
basin
doesn't
make
sense
to
me-
and
you
know
this
motion
passes
and
I
I
end
up
having
a
difficult
time
pushing
forward.
R
I
I
would
rather
do
it
the
opposite
way
from
what
senator
scott
said,
but
the
plan,
together
with
the
deviation
in
the
basin
minimize
to
the
greatest
extent
possible
work
on
the
upper
end
on
the
other
districts
and
then
show
what
happens
if
you
have
to
go
to
a
five
percent
deviant
or
deviation,
and
the
effect
that
that
has
on
voters
and
the
disenfranchisement
of
those
people
and
explain
that
hey.
We
tried
to
do
this
and
it
doesn't
work,
and
the
deviation
is
just
fine.
G
So
representative,
mcguire
pa,
sells
a
comment.
I'll
go
to
senator
scott.
Go
ahead,
represent
mcguire.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
my
question
would
be
mechanically
so
hypothetically
if
we
went
through
and
we
passed
with
a
six
percent
deviation
in
the
basin
and
it
was
challenged
mechanically.
How
does
that
work?
Is
there
an
immediate
stay
by
a
court,
and
we
have
to
come
back
in
the
next
saturday
and
they
don't
give
us
any
food
until
we
come
up
with
a
com.
M
Back
in
the
in
common
law,
when
a
jury
did
go
out,
they
wouldn't
give
them
any
food,
that's
how
they
made
sure
they
got
a
verdict
timely,
or
is
this
like
a
two-year
process?
I
just
I'm
curious
mechanically.
What
would
happen
if
there
was
a
deviation
and
it
was
challenged?
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So.
G
Mr
anderson,
I'm
sure
you're
aware
you're
up,
maybe
just
give
the
quick
cursory
overview
of
what
could
likely
happen
where
it
would
come
from
what
the
defense
ability
would
be
and
how
quickly
it
would
proceed.
P
You
know,
mr
chairman,
I
think
tons
of
variables
in
there
as
to
how
that
might
proceed.
Who
would
challenge
it?
You
know
what
the
result
in
the
court
would
be.
What
the
remedy
ordered
by
the
court
would
be.
You
know
in
the
memo
they
indicated
that
you
know
the
the
court
may
draw
the
map
themselves
rather
than
sending
it
back
to
the
legislature
in
the
gorham
case.
P
They
mentioned
that
so
there's
all
kinds
of
variables
that
if,
when
you
get
into
litigation,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
know
how
much
we
can
forecast
that,
but
senator.
Q
Q
The
outcomes
are
way
out
there
I
mean
they
could
prevail
on
the
plan.
It
could
be
sent
back
to
the
legislature
to
do
it
again.
It
could
be.
It
could
end
up
in
a
preview
purview
of
the
court
to
draw
the
plan
to
tweak
it.
Q
G
P
Likely,
mr
chairman,
again
it
would
depend
you
know
who
brought
the
case.
You
know
how
the
court
decided
to
handle
it.
They
could
certainly,
you
know,
like
senator
kay,
said,
put
a
stay
into
effect
and
not
let
let
it
go
into
effect.
You
know
it
could
be
challenged.
P
You
know
some
of
these
litigations
and
I
think
in
kentucky,
went
on
pretty
much
for
the
last
eight
or
ten
years
yeah.
So
yeah,
like
I
said
you
know,
there's
just
there's
no
real
way.
I
don't
think
that
we
could
forecast
exactly
how
it
would
play
out.
Mr
chairman
and
senator
scott.
H
I
think
I
agree
with
with
that
last
segment.
Frankly,
I
think
it's
a
different
way
of
getting
where
I
think
we
need
to
go,
which
is
to
to
have
a
genuine.
This
is
what
we
would
do
if
we
had
to
get
in
deviate.
I
get
the
basin
within
deviation
and
then
a
provision
that
we
aren't
going
to
do
that
unless
we're
ordered
to.
H
I
think
that
that
that's
the
best
way
to
handle
it.
This
is
this
is
a
a
slightly
different
way
of
getting
at
where
representative
grier
wants
to
go,
but
I
think
it's
the
one
that
gives
us
the
best
chance
in
court
because
it
leads
to
the
adoption
of
a
backup
plan.
That
is
what
we
really
would
do,
and
I
recognize
that
we'll
you
can't
do
it
just
in
fremont
county.
I
don't
think
I
think
it
will
come
into
natrona
county.
H
I
think
it
might
come
into
sheridan
county
as
well
in
spite
of
the
mountain
range
when
possibly
into
some
more
of
northern
teton
county.
So
you
you
have,
you
have
risks
with
with
saying
this
is
what
we
really
would
do
and
we
would
mean
we'd
have
to
fight
out
dead
serious.
What
we
really
would
do,
mr
chairman
and
that's,
I
think,
is
desirable
in
terms
of
strengthening
our
our
position
and
and
having
a
better
chance
of
dealing
with
the
base
intelligently.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
can
I
offer
a
friendly
amendment
to
the
amendment
on
the
table
or
the
motion
on
the
table
of
the
deviation
throughout
the
entire
state,
but
flexibility
within
the
basin.
Q
J
G
I've
seen
one
plan
from
the
greater
basin
area
and
I
believe
it's
from
the
clerks
and
has
agreement
from
the
legislators,
but
I
haven't
seen
any
competing
plans
and
I
just
personally
don't
feel
like
our
starting
places.
We
can't
do
it
right
because
when
I
run
the
numbers,
if
it
was
just
fremont
county
and
the
four
basin
counties
you
can
draw
10
seats,
is
that
correct?
Mr
swank?
You
know
what
deviation
might
be.
P
G
I
guess
I
would
ask
that
we
do
our
best
attempt
at
what
could
be
possible
and
then
we
can
certainly
bounce
it
and
just
say
that
really
isn't
workable,
but
I
would
encourage
at
least
a
second
look
of
an
attempt
that
we
say
it
is
possible
on
paper.
It
might
not
work
for
anyone,
but
I
would
like
I
would
support
senator
case's
motion
of
trying
to
trying
the
hardest
we
can
before.
We
just
say
that
they
came
to
us
with
a
plan
was
under
deviation,
take
it
or
leave
it,
let's
keep
working
it.
L
Swank
go
ahead,
mr
chairman,
just
for
educational
purposes
in
the
discussion
about
potential
additions
to
the
basin.
Hence
audi
can
correct
me.
The
remaining
population
in
yellowstone
is
about
80
people
and
the
closest
voting
voting
precinct
in
natrona
county
has
116
people,
so
that
only
adds
about
nine
or
200
people
to
that,
so
it
would.
There
would
still
be
potential
for
about
500
required
from
from
riverton
or
riverton
fremont
county.
R
Yeah,
I
mean
I'm
sorry,
I
I
don't,
but
you
know
we
didn't
give
our
plan
to
you
and
say:
take
it
or
leave
it,
but
our
if
you
recall
our
first
plan
was
to
stay
within
deviation.
That
was
our
first
decision
as
a
legislators
in
the
clerks
we
had
the
meetings
we
heard
from
fremont
county,
which
is
where
it
made
sense.
We
listened
to
those
folks
senator
case
in
particular
and
then
went
back
to
our
plan
b,
and
that
was
after
consultation
with
the
house
corporations
committee.
R
So
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear.
We
didn't
just
say:
take
this
or
leave
this.
We
put
forward
our
best
effort,
which
keep
in
mind
within
all
the
communities
within
the
basin
is
not
very
palatable
for
all
the
reasons
that
we
hear
from
laramie,
county
and
goshen
county
in
westin,
county
and
campbell
county.
We
have
all
those
issues,
but
we
put
those
aside
to
give
you
what
we
felt
was
the
best
option.
G
I
do
appreciate
that
term
and
group
and
you
are
correct,
there
were
discussions
and
you
know
we
have
batted
it
around
on.
You
know
what
would
be
achievable
and
work
for
for
all
of
us
and
what
the
deviation
might
look
like.
So
I
do
remember
those
conversations,
but
ultimately
there
was
only
one
submitted
plan
from
the
base
and
after
consultation
and
mr
odi
while
you're
here,
can
I
pull
you
up
professed.
U
So,
mr,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
hans,
odie
deputy
park
county
clerk.
I
the
best
our
best
situation,
probably
is
the
valley
plan
to
come
out
of
fremont
county.
I
know
that
does
have
issues
with
house
district
34..
U
It's.
It
makes
26
a
really
funny
looking
area
because
they
would
have
to
go
obviously
in
the
wintertime.
They'd
have
to
go
down
to
grebel
and
then
up
over
the
mountain
it
puts
population
honestly
in
the
wrong
area
of
the
basin
where
the
basin
needs
population
is
in
the
south,
because
worland
and
washington
and
hot
springs
county
have
so
few
and
all
of
the
population
really
is
concentrated
in
in
the
north
and
so
putting
putting
the
ranchester
area
over
into
26.
U
Just
more
concentrates
that
population
of
in
the
north
side
again
the
the
natrona
idea,
looking
at
my
map
here,
looks
like
you'd
have
to
go
almost
all
the
way
to
casper
to
gather
up
enough
enough
people
and
what
what
my
idea
would
be
would
be
to
increase
27
from
the
south
part.
U
There
of
27
through
the
no
wood,
no
water
area
down
into
toronto,
taking
the
park
is
again
79
people,
it's
just
not
enough
to
to
really
help
us
out
and
again
puts
population
in
the
northern
part
of
the
state
or
northern
part
of
the
basin.
U
If,
if
the,
if
the
basin
dropped
to
five
legislators,
I've
looked
at
this
too
you,
you
would
have
to
take
3
000
people
out
of
the
bighorn
basin
and
push
them
into
fremont
county,
which
again
messes
with
your
your
majority
minority
population
there
and
how
they
spread
that
out.
What
that
would
look
like
is
taking
everything
south
of
al
creek
with
the
with
the
remaining
part
of
the
reservation.
That's
in
hot
springs,
county
and
through
thermopolis
on
broadway.
U
The
only
stoplight
in
thermopolis
is
where
that's
broadway
and
sixth
street
you
come
come
right
down,
broadway
from
metisi
and
through
east
thermopolis,
and
then
up
highway
20
to
the
washington
county
line.
Everything
east
of
there
would
be
3
000
people,
so
it
essentially
would
leave
hot
springs
county
with
about
600
people
in
that
in
that
what
orphan
orphan
population
and
then
those
three
thousand
would
have
to
go
down
into
fremont
county
somewhere.
H
To
disagree
with
the
witness,
but
I
was
doing
some
calculations
last
night,
based
on
using
an
ideal
district
size
in
in
the
basin
for
four
house
members,
and
my
calculation
was
that
the
hot
springs
county
district
would
would
essentially
wind
up
that
would
go
out
of
the
the
bighorn
basin.
H
Would
wind
up
with
enough
population
to
be
56
of
the
ideal
representative
population.
So
that
would
be
in
the
vicinity
of
5
000
people.
And
that
means
that
you,
you
could
do
it
with
less
people.
But
you
you
go
over
the
ideal
in
the
in
the
northern
part
of
the
basin.
If
you
do
it
and
I
think
that
would
be
unwise,
so
you
won't
you
wind
up
with
the
district.
That's
still
a
bighorn
basin
district,
but
it
has
a
heavy
component
of
either
natrana
or
or
fremont
or
both
and.
H
S
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
have
a
question
and
a
thought
that
the
question
might
be
for
josh,
since
it
seems
like
there's.
Hardly
anyone
in
wyoming
that
would
be
opposed
to
the
basin,
maybe
not
being
able
to
to
make
the
deviation
who
who
historically
has
brought
these
lawsuits
against
states.
Is
it
generally
within
the
state
that
these
are
these
lawsuits
are
being
brought?
That's
just
a
question,
and
then
the
thought
is
that
we
are
getting
quite
a
bit
away
from
representatives
motion,
so
I
I
think
we
could.
S
We
should
get
back
to
that
if
we
could.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
P
Mr
chairman,
you
know,
I
think
the
court
case
would
have
to
be
brought
by.
You
know
a
voter
in
the
state.
Someone
who's
affected
by
by
the
plan
could
certainly
be
backed
by
outside
groups.
That
has
happened
in
other
states.
I
don't
know
so
much
in
this
state,
but
likely
you
know
if,
if
the
basin
was
on
the
low
end
of
the
of
the
deviation,
it
would
potentially
be
brought
by
someone
in
a
district.
That's
towards
the
high
end
of
the
deviation.
H
Senator
scott,
to
elaborate
on
that,
you
have
a
wide
range
of
possible
plaintiffs.
H
That,
if
you,
if
you
mess
up
the
majority
minority
district
in
fremont
county,
probably
your
tribal
councils
and
potential
plaintiffs,
anybody
who's
aggrieved,
a
citizen
of
chronic
county
who
thinks
that
we
should
have
had
more
representation
potentially
could
bring
it
they're
the
same
same
with
how
it
plays
out
in
laramie,
county
or
campbell
county.
Any
of
them
potentially
could
be
lessened
from
the
brown
v
thompson
case
who
went
to
the
supreme
court
is,
if
you're
mad
about
some
part
of
a
plan.
H
It's
not
safe
to
just
attack
the
plan
in
court
on
that
they'll
say
that
isn't
big
enough
to
make
a
difference
and
that's
what
they
did
in
brown,
so
you
attacked
the
whole
plan
plus
I
asked
earlier
josh
and
you
can
confirm
this.
If
you
will
is
attorney
fees
mandatory,
the
answer
was
that
they
were
not
mandatory
but
were
frequently
given
in
that.
So
you
do
have
the
possibility
of
a
suit,
essentially
by
a
lawyer,
finds
a
plaintiff
who's,
essentially
freelancing
for
legal
fees.
G
B
Mr
sherman,
thank
you.
So
I'm
going
to
vote
against
this
motion.
You
know
I
think
I
did
fight
for
in
deviation
when
we
had
our
little
informal
meeting.
However,
I
think
what
this
currently
does
is
muddies
representative
airs
motion
a
little
too
much.
You
know,
I
think
I
would
be
interested
in
seeing
what
an
in-deviation
and
what
a
minimal
deviation
plan
would
look
like
and
maybe
I'll
make
a
motion
to
that
effect
after
this
motion
is
disposed
of,
but
I
think
right
now.
B
This
motion
inside
of
representative
air's
motion
is
too
much,
so
I'm
gonna
vote
this
one
down
and
I
hope
we
can
keep
the
map
clean
without
trying
to
muddy
it
up
with
requirements
for
every
region.
B
G
The
other
comments
are
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
I
guess.
A
motion
center
case
is
to
have
the
have
the
state
be
completely
within
deviation
in
all
districts.
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
that
motion,
please
say
aye
aye
opposed,
say
no,
no,
show
a
hands
then,
especially
for
the
people
online.
My
apologies,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
Please
raise
your
hand
two
three.
G
Four.
All
those
opposed
to
motion
raise
your
hand,
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight
nine
that
motion
has
failed.
We
are
back
on
the
original
air
motion
on
compilation,
one
senator
case
or
senator
scott.
I've
asked
the
question
once
already
any
other
further
comment:
question
on
the
motion
to
put
forward
at
least
statewide
plan
compilation
won
with
the
previous
three
amendments
placed
on
it
all
in
favor
of
that
amendment.
Please
raise
your
hand.
G
H
That
we
put
forward
a
plan
based
on
the-
I
think
it's
2a
here
with
the
corrections
made
to
get
it
within
deviation
less
the
bighorn
basin
and
to
also
accept
the
the
motion
that
we
had
from
mr
boner
thunder
boner
on
the
previous.
R
G
H
More
chairman,
what
I
want
to
do
is
to
have
a
plan
before
us,
based
on
its
comp
plan,
comp
compilation
2a
with
the
out
of
deviations
corrected
and
with
the
flexibility
for
that
representative
boner's
motion
gave
to
the
the
eastern
part
of
the
state
district,
six
and
seven
that
was
agreed
to
previously
and
mr
chairman,
since
I've
got
a
second,
let
me
let
me
say
why.
H
Frankly,
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
both
plans,
because
I
think,
having
the
single
plan
isn't
going
to
work
for
the
senate,
it
just
isn't
going
to
work.
I
don't
think
I
want
to
see,
see
how
it
will
work,
but
I
think
I
think
it
won't.
So
I
want
to
see
both
of
them
available.
G
L
Mr
chairman
map
2a,
I
believe
the
two
biggest
differences
are
the
first
item
that
you
mentioned
the
districts,
the
district
change
between
the
western
part
of
the
state
and
laramie
county,
and
then
in
this
in
this
option.
Currently
it
would
be
region,
six
is
out
of
deviation,
but
with
the
amendment
from
senator
boehner.
That
would
give
them
the
flexibility
to
alleviate
that
that
concern.
H
Mr
chairman,
scott,
we
may
also
have
to
make
a
modification
with
regard
to
district
47.
and,
and
I
can
work
that
out
with
the
lso
mr.
L
Chairman,
mr
chairman,
I
apologize
and
senator
scott
is
correct.
There
are
currently,
I
believe,
three
districts
in
the
region,
nine
or
sweetwater
carbon
area
that
are
below
deviation,
so
that
would
again
be
addressed
by
his
amendment
to
have
all
districts,
but
the
base
and
come
back
within
deviation.
G
B
Okay,
so
I
think
I
would
need
to
understand
what
the
possibilities
for
adjusting
region,
10
and
9
that
the
good
senator
is
saying
that
he
would
propose
to
do
on
his
own
before
I
would
vote
on
this
plan.
H
Senator
scott,
the
numbers
work
out
where
there
is
enough
population
to
get
everybody
in
nine
and
ten
within
deviation
and
there's
several
options
for
doing
it.
It
would
not
be
particularly
difficult
to
do.
I
think
the
the
the
out
of
deviations
are
relatively
small
and
we
talked
about
some
of
them
yesterday.
Do
you
go
into?
Do
you
go
into
sublet
county?
Do
you
go
into
the
smooth
area
in
lincoln
county?
That
may
be
the
best
option
and
there's
there's
some
other
minor
adjustments
in
the
sweetwater
county,
carbon
county
area.
N
Senator
boner
yeah
on
and
for
this
one
I
think
we
do
need
to
keep
both
plans
alive.
There's
still
a
lot
of
discussion.
I
think
that
signs
around
the
population
shifts
around
the
I-80
corridor
and
how
that
fits
in
with
the
rest
of
state.
I
think
we
have
to
have
both
options
on
the
table.
Like
I
said
I
think
you
know.
N
I
think
the
more
moderate
approach
is
going
to
be
probably
somewhere
in
between
these
two
plans.
So
I
think
it's
important
that
we
do
keep
them
both
alive
and
I
have
a
tendency
to
agree
with
the
senator
from
casper.
It's
I
mean
it's
tough.
When
you
go
in
and
having
done
this
in
region,
seven
yeah
you're
not
gonna,
keep
your
every
last
community
whole.
G
So
I
mean
just
for
the
record-
I
think
I
already
said
it,
but
keeping
laramie
county
to
10
house
districts
and
allowing
you
know
all
the
lincoln
county
and
teton
that
are
historically
losing
population
to
be
drawn
at
negative.
Four
point:
six
to
four
point:
nine
would
not
be
palatable
to
my
community,
so
I'll
probably
be
having
to
vote
no
on
the
plan.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
we
need
to
come
out
here
with
one
plan
that
we
have
with
amendments
on.
We
can
do
all
the
things
that
have
happened
with
all
things
been
suggested.
With
amendments,
this
current
plan,
we
need
to
have
one
plan
that
we're
all
working
on
and
they're
going
on
parallel
paths.
E
S
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
have
to
agree
with
representative
ayer
that
the
idea
that
and
disagree
with
the
senator
that,
if
we
do
we
can,
we
can
make
that
the
region
work,
but
it
doesn't
really
work
with
the
state
and
and
it
it
goes
against
our
community
of
interest
greatly
over
there,
and
so
I
think
in
looking
at
the
state
as
a
whole
and
the
populations
the
way
they
are,
that
just
making
one
region
work
and
unnecessarily.
S
I
just
couldn't
vote
for
this
one,
and
I
do
think
one
plan
is
better
if
we're
going
to
move
forward.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
G
G
H
Mr
chairman,
I
think
we've
got
ourselves
an
impossible
situation,
I'm
going
to
make
a
request
the
lso,
to
provide
an
amendment
that
does
what
second
plan
would
be
an
amendment
to
the
to
the
plan
we
put
forward
and
to
prepare
a
private
bill.
H
H
That
we
have
been
rolled
in
the
process.
I
think
that
one
county
has
exercised
a
extraordinary
lack
of
statesmanship
in
this.
I
think
we
have
transformed
what
was
a
relatively
simple
reapportionment
into
something
that
just
isn't
going
to
work
for
one
house
of
the
legislature
and
I
frankly
discussed
it.
You
know
this
is
my
fifth
one
of
these
things.
This
was
potentially
the
easiest
one
and
I
think
it
has
been
messed
up
like
you
wouldn't
believe,
and
that's
how
I
I
feel
I
feel
I'm
getting
disgusted
with
the
whole
process.
Q
G
All
right
committee
we're
almost
right
on
schedule
and
because
we
didn't
officially
close
out
the
last
topic,
I
do
want
to
make
sure
there's
no
other
motions
or
discussion
at
this
time
on
redistricting,
seeing
none
online
and
sentencing
we're
ready
to
move
on
from
that,
and
let's
come
back
in
the
afternoon
to
when
an
appropriate
next
meeting
of
the
committee
will
be.
It
would
be
my
hope
to
have
it
before
january
1st,
with
a
better
laid
out
map
just
in
case
but
moving
on.
G
G
C
G
T
T
The
bill
draft
primarily
does
three
things:
it
provides
a
definition
of
organization
it
with
respect
to
chapter
25
the
campaign
practices
of
wyoming
statute
within
the
election
code.
T
That
means
any
corporation
partnership,
trade
union,
professional
association
or
civic,
fraternal
or
religious
group
or
other
prophet
or
non-profit
entity,
or
any
other
entity
influencing
an
election
except
a
candidate's
campaign
committee,
political
action,
committee
or
political
party.
So
essentially,
it
covers
just
about
any
group
except
for
political
action,
committees,
candidate
campaign
committees
or
the
political
parties
themselves,
and
we'll
see
that
definition
throughout
the
bill.
Moving
back
then,
to
page
two.
T
This
amends
wyoming
statute
2225-101
by
providing
a
new
subsection
c
that
provides
that
an
organization
that
receives
contributions
or
expense
funds
in
excess
of
a
thousand
dollars
for
the
purposes
of
independent
expenditures
or
electionary
communications
has
to
file
a
statement
of
formation
for
the
purpose
of
purporting
political
expenditures
and
that
will
be
filed
in
the
offices,
as
provided
by
required
by
22
25
107,
which
is
going
to
be
either
the
county
clerk
or
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
depending
on
the
office
that's
being
under
election
paragraph.
T
Paragraph
three
requires
that
they
make
an
independent,
an
organization
causes
or
intends
to
cause
an
independent
or
election
hearing
communication
to
be
made
in
a
primary
general
or
special
election.
They
file
that
statement
within
10
days
of
making
the
independent
expenditure
and
if
they
have
not
on
page
four,
then
it
requires
to
be
made
within
24
hours
of
making
that
expenditure
or
election
communication.
T
Moving
on
to
page
five
through
eight
are
just
conforming
amendments
dealing
with
that
change
in
the
definition
either
removing
language
that
doesn't
need
to
be
there
anymore,
because
of
that
being
provided
in
the
through
the
definition
or
adding
language
to
make
sure
that
it
still
applies
to
the
proper
parties.
M
T
We
see
a
change
there
lines
six
and
seven
just
changing
the
amount.
The
threshold
amount
from
five
hundred
dollars
to
a
thousand
dollars
for
requiring
an
itemized
statement
of
contribution
and
expenditures
during
any
primary
special
or
general
election,
and
on
line
17-18.
T
On
page
10.,
this
amends
2225
107,
which
is
where
reports
are
required
to
be
filed
on
line
six.
It
adds
a
language
or
organization
lines.
Eight
and
nine
adds
organization
that
causes
an
independent
expenditure
or
election
communication
to
be
made
within
the
county,
and
this
is
just
providing
for
organizations
to
file
with
county
clerks
under
circumstances.
T
The
bill
section
2,
would
repeal
2225,
101
c3
and
that
language
is
there
in
the
staff
comment
below,
essentially
on
page
11
there,
you
see
the
b,
which
would
be
the
adoption
or
defeat
of
a
ballot
proposition,
removing
that
from
what
an
part
of
the
definition
there
for
independent
expenditure
or
what
constitutes
an
independent
expenditure.
Q
T
I
would
frankly
senator
excuse
me,
mr
chairman,
I
would
defer
to
the
secretary
of
state
on
that
my
recollection,
is
they
just
weren't,
seeing
it
as
as
necessary
as
being
something
that
would
actually
be
applicable,
it's
my
recollection,
but
I
again
would
defer
to
okay.
Thank
you.
T
All
right
go
ahead.
That
could
be
effective
july,
1st
2022,
that
I'd
stand
for
any
questions.
H
Hopkinson
senator
scott,
mr
chairman,
it
looks
to
me
that
the
the
stated
purpose
of
this
is
to
get
rid
of
transparency
so
that
we
know
either
independent
expenditures
or
on
a
ballot
initiative,
know
the
name
of
the
organization
and
who's
put
the
organization
together,
but
a
list
of
their
donors,
so
that,
as
with
campaign
finance,
other
campaign,
finance
reporting
we're
seeking
to
to
have
that
public
information.
H
H
T
Mr
chairman,
senator
scott,
I
did
provide
the
committee
with
a
memo
kind
of
highlighting
some
of
the
potential
issues.
Essentially
I
think
that
is
a
bit
of
an
open
question.
There
is
some
10th
circuit
precedent
which
would
suggest
that.
T
However,
other
states
have
do
have
similar
laws
to
this
that
that
have
passed
their
circuits
muster.
So
I
I
think
it
is
a
fair
question
which
way
it
would
go.
I
can't
say,
although
I
I
would
lean
towards
it,
particularly
given
the
decisions
and
citizens
united
and
the
cases
that
have
sent
from
that
it
would
probably
pass
constitutional
muster,
but
I
can't
really
give
a
solid
answer
on
that.
It
isn't
certainly
an
issue.
Senator
scott
follow
up,
you
know,
go
to
representative.
H
I
have
another
question,
but
following
up
on
that,
mr
chairman,
that
that
answer,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
have
this
transparency,
and
that
answer
tells
me
that
there
hasn't
been
a
clear
court
decision
against
it.
So
I
think
we're
all
right
proceeding
and
I
think
we
should
because
the
right
thing
to
do.
H
M
T
Mr
chairman,
I
I
I
would
want
to
go.
Take
a
closer
look
if
to
give
a
more
clear
answer,
but
I
believe
that
those
penalty
provisions
to
a
certain
extent
are
applicable
to
this
as
well.
But
I
I
would
be
happy
to
take
a
look
and
give
you
a
clear
answer
on
that.
M
T
Mr
chairman,
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I
believe
that
the
sanctions
here
would
be
civil
or
civil
penalties,
financial
sanctions
for
failing
to
file,
but
I
don't
recall
that
there's
a
specific
misdemeanor
penalty,
but
I
that
would
be
something
I
would
need
to
catch.
Thank
you.
M
And
I
I
have
taken
advantage
of
that
to
put
everybody
to
sleep,
it's
a
fairly
long
provision,
but
to
shorten
it
down
it
500
for
a
failure
to
file
and
200
for
a
subsequent
failure
to
file.
Now,
after
that,
it
will
be
referred
to
the
local
prosecuting
attorney's
office,
which
would
either
be
a
county
attorney
or
a
district
attorney.
And
yes,
I
believe
that
it
would
be
a
civil
penalty.
At
that
point,.
M
G
V
Kaishon
election
director
and
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
I
appreciate
mr
hopkinson's
review
of
this
bill
and,
as
he
said
earlier,
following
the
I
guess
it
was
the
may
meeting
but
took
place
in
in
june
that
mr
chairman,
you
would
ask
if
there
was
anything
you
know
that
our
office
could
think
of.
V
The
bill
was
a
collaboration,
as
mr
hopkins
hopkinson
said,
with
our
office
in
lso.
V
It
again
it
creates
that
requirement
for
organizations,
as
defined
within
the
bill,
to
form
within
10
days
of
causing
or
intending
to
cause
these
independent
expenditures
or
election
communications,
and
we
recognize
that
organizations.
They
are
uniquely
different
than
a
pac
or
a
candidate
committee.
They
exist
for
other
purposes
and
the
way
that
this
bill
reads.
We
believe
that
it
takes
that
uniqueness
into
account,
and
it's
not
egregious
or
unreasonable.
V
We
think
it
creates
a
logical
flow
really
for
the
for
the
organizations
from
formation
to
filing
which
already
exists,
as
we
see
with
political
action
committees
and
candidate
committees,
they
have
to
form
within
10
days
when
they
determine
they're
going
to
be
doing
something
politically,
and
so
it
follows
that
same
type
of
transparency
and
that
process
the
public
will
really
potentially
be
able
to
know.
Sooner
than
later
who
these
organizations
are
and
how
to
contact
them,
because
there'll
be
contact
information
required
by
those
formations.
V
So
long
as
those
expenditures,
of
course,
aren't
greater
greater
than
a
thousand
dollars,
it'll
also
give
organizations
the
same
reporting
reminders
that
everybody
on
this
committee
receives,
as
well
as
candidate
committees
in
pacs
and
parties
that
there's
upcoming
filings
that
are
taking
place
because
currently
the
way
organizations
operate
is
they.
We
don't
know
what
they're
doing,
how
much
they're
doing
of
it
and
it's
up
to
them
to
file,
and
so
there's
no
mechanism
in
place
to
remind
them
to
assist
them
with
that
process.
V
So
it's
definitely
a
process
that
has
a
start
and
a
finish
formation
to
filing
if
we're
to
receive
calls
in
the
2022
election
about
ads
depicting
a
candidate
whether
in
a
positive
or
negative
fashion,
we'll
be
able
to
reach
out
to
these
organizations.
Let
them
know
that
you
know
this
ad
that
was
ran
or
mailing
address,
or
this
particular
social
media
campaign
that
we've
been
alerted
to.
V
If
it's
an
access
of
a
thousand,
you
need
to
know
that
you
need
to
form,
and
it
also
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
remind
them
of
the
als
the
filing
periods
that
will
come
thereafter
and
really
with
that.
I
don't
have
anything
more
to
to
say
about
the
bill,
but
I'm
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
The
committee
may
have.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I
support
every
portion
of
this
bill
and
my
question
is
so
we
always
have
to
be
sensitive
to
a
group
forms
they
send
out
a
a
notice
or
something
like
that,
a
mailer.
They
don't
realize
that
it
doesn't
correspond
to
the
this
current
statute.
M
You
notify
them
in
some
manner,
and
so
they
either
stop
or
retract
or
whatever
that's
one
situation.
The
situation
that
I
want
to
ask
you
about
is
the
group
or
organization
that
intentionally
violates
it
and
thinks
that
well,
five
hundred
dollars,
that's
just
cost
doing
business,
and
so
they
they
build
that
into
it.
V
Mr
chairman,
mr
chairman,
representative
mcguire,
I
guess
ultimately
that
would
really
be
a
decision
of
this
committee
here.
As
far
as
what
kind
of
teeth
we
could
have,
the
only
complexity
to
it
is
in
reaching
out
to
an
organization
in
this
you
know
scenario
we
don't
know
if
it's
exceeded,
you
know
that
500
or
that
thousand
they
would
know
that,
and
so
they
at
some
point
there
is
a
with
anything
campaign.
V
Finance
related,
you
know,
really
it's
are
they
being
honest
about
what
they're
doing
and
so
short
of
that
information
being
known,
it'd
be
hard
to
put
some
teeth
in
to
put
their
feet
to
the
fire.
If
you
will,
if
it
were
known
that
it
was
an
access,
if
we
were
to
receive
some
kind
of
proof
of
a
particular
ad
or
mailers
that
were
sent,
and
we
can
see
that
it's
in
an
access
and
then
that
is
certainly
something
that
could
be,
you
know
written
into
the
law.
H
Senator
scott,
mr
chairman
question:
there
are
federal
political
action
organizations.
H
Am
I
right
in
thinking
that
they
are
beyond
our
reach,
to
regulate
the
feds,
regulate
them
and
there
is
disclosure
there
at
the
federal
level
is.
Is
that
correct,
or
does
this
catch
those
and
put
additional
reporting
requirements
on.
V
That,
mr,
mr
chairman,
senator
scott,
the
the
federal
organizations,
if
we're,
if
we're
talking
about
those
that
form
like
tax
like
the
super
pacs,
all
of
that
would
still
happen
at
the
federal
election
commission
with
the
fec,
so
that
wouldn't
funnel
down
into
reporting
with
our
state
similar
to
how
the
national
party
reports
at
the
federal
level
or
any
other
federal
type
pack.
So.
H
Senator
scott,
so
I
didn't
there
isn't
an
explicit
exception
for
the
federal
organizations,
but
is
it
am
I
right
in
thinking
that
they
have
preempted
our
our
regulation
of
those
and
they
take
care
of
that.
G
V
Mr
chairman,
that's
an
excellent
question
and
really
the
effective
date
could
be
sooner
than
that.
It
could
certainly
be
at
the
time
of
if
it
were
to
move
forward
and
be
signed
into
law.
At
that
time,
it
would
be
sufficient
and
might
be
a
better
idea
given
what
you
just
presented
with
activity
taking
place
before
and
then
after
the
effective
date,
and
so
I
would,
I
think
that
would
be
advantageous.
G
M
Representative,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
with
regard
to
the
amount
that
you
need
to
find
out
from
the
party,
would
there
be?
M
Would
you
recommend,
or
would
there
be
a
a
way
to
change
the
presumption
on
page
number
two,
and
I
would
bring
into
example
a
sales
tax
audit
for
those
of
us
who
have
enjoyed
one
of
those
when
the
sales
tax
auditors
come
in.
They
presume
that
you
have
collected
sales
tax
and
it's
your
burden
to
show
them
how
much
you
have
collected
and
to
show
them
that
you've
paid
your
sales
tax
and
passed
that
on.
J
M
M
I
don't
have
any
way
as
the
person
who's
the
subject
of
that
mail
out
to
show
in
any
way
shape
or
form
you
and
your
office
don't
have
any
way,
shape
or
form
the
presumption
should
be
on
the
party,
at
least
in
my
mind.
The
presumption
should
be
on
that
party,
as
they
mailed
it
out
to
two
of
their
friends,
that's
very
different
than
if
they
went
down
to
a
commercial
mail
out
house
and
did
blanket
at
the
state.
M
V
Mr
chairman
representative,
mcguire,
that
that
question
I
would
probably
defer
to
lso
or
or
another
attorney
to
think
through,
but
you're,
absolutely
right,
we,
the
recipient
or
our
office,
does
not
have
have
that
information
short
of
requiring
them
to
prove
it.
We
wouldn't
know,
I
don't
know
if
there'd
be
constitutional
issues
with
that
any
type
of
if
that
would
come
into
play
here.
So
I
don't
know
how
to
answer
that,
and
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
I
think
I
would
maybe
defer
that
to
lso.
T
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
As
far
as
immediate
thoughts
on
the
presumption
there,
I
would
need
to
take
a
little
bit
of
time
to
look
at
that
and
make
sure
there
aren't
any
other
issues
that
don't
arise
on
its
face.
So
I
guess
at
this
point
I
don't
have
a
solid
answer.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
mr
shone.
Just
kind
of
a
technical
question
about
we
separate
out
in
this
bill.
The
activities
relating
to
a
ballot
proposition
you
sort
of
get
the
trigger
for
the
bill
starts
when
you
collect
a
thousand
dollars
to
begin
to
pursue
some
kind
of
a
ballot
proposition,
I
guess
pursue
or
attack
ballot
proposition,
and
yet
the
other
triggers
don't
have
a
specific
it's
kind
of
two
different
triggers
and
help
me
why
we
need
two
different
triggers.
We
can't
use
the
same.
V
Mr
chairman
senator
case
in
regards
to
that
the
thousand
dollar
trigger
for
organizations
that
are
participating
specifically
in
first
amendment
right
type
activity.
V
V
I
think,
we're
talking
about
on
page
three,
the
first
formation
there
of
a
of
an
organization
and
because
that
one
has
does
not
have
this
one
thousand
dollar
threshold
in
there,
because
those
are
organizations
that
would
you
know
possibly
be
supporting
or
opposing
a
ballot
proposition,
and
so
their
threshold
is
zero,
and
so
the
right,
the
thousand
right
just
comes
in
for
these
independent
expenditures,
electionary
communications
as
and
why
I,
I
can't
answer
the
why
I
do
know
that
it
was
a
bill
passed
in
2019
when
election
during
communications
came
to
be
in
our
law
and
at
that
time
it
was
brought
in
at
500.
Q
The
second
question
is
more:
I
guess
more
getting
at
this
bill,
there's
a
current,
a
court
action
between
the
secretary
of
state's
office
and
firearm
gun
owners.
I
believe
it's
ongoing.
I
know
that
there's
been
some
orders
issued
by
the
court
back
in
september.
If
I
remember
right-
and
I
know
that
feels
to
me-
like
that's
a
reason-
why
part
of
the
reason
we're
doing
this
bill
when
you
read
about
this,
you
know
and
it's
about
non-reported
expenditures
by
this
organization,
the
the
secretary
of
state's
offices
is
challenging.
Q
So
the.
Q
I
always
like
to
wait
for
court
things
to
kind
of
finish
out
before
we
start
meddling
with
the
law,
but
so
the
court
is
going
to
interpret
our
existing
law
and
they
haven't
done
it
yet,
although
they
have
issued
some
at
least
one
order
so
far,
and
so
how
does
this
all
roll
together?
The
court
is
looking
at
something
evaluating
under
the
old
law,
we're
kind
of
changing
this
law
at
the
same
time.
Are
we
reacting
to
the
court?
V
Mr
shawn
go
ahead,
mr
chairman
senator
case.
That
particular
case,
of
course,
is
still
in
in
the
middle
of
the
process
and
can't
really
speak
to
that.
V
This
idea,
if
you
will
about
organizations
forming
that's
only
piece,
that's
new
here
since
the
case
we're
discussing
and
so
they've
always
had
to
file
well
since
2019.,
and
so
it's
not
even
so
much
of
a
reaction
if
you
will,
but
it
has
been
something
I
would
just
say
that
we've
discussed
internally
for
a
while.
Like
we
have
organizations,
we
look
at
our
campaign,
finance
guide.
It
says:
there's
no
definition
of
what
they
are.
V
J
I
G
Other
questions
for
the
election
instructor
not
seeing
any
from
anyone.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
shum.
Thank
you.
We'll
take
some
public
comment
now.
Let
me
start
with
the
county
clerks
see
if
they
have
any
concerns
or
issues,
and
so
many
of
them
still
here
on
the
internet.
We
have,
mr,
where
did
he
go,
mr
chestick?
It
is
all
you
you're
the
floor.
D
Thank
you,
chairman
zwanitzer.
I
speak,
I'm
ken
chester
from
laramie.
I
am
the
president
of
wyoming
promise,
which
I
think
most
you
are
familiar
with
an
organization
that
is
trying
to
work
on
the
problems
of
dark
money
in
our
politics
here,
and
I
speak
generally
in
favor
of
this
bill.
I
think
it's
a
good
bill
does
some
good
things,
but
I
have
a
question
there's
something
that
appears
to
be
missing
from
it.
D
If
you
recall
I,
I
spoke
to
this
committee
at
the
by
zoom
at
the
meeting
and
sheridan
in
september
in
the
minutes
of
that
meeting,
and
this
is
to
follow
up
on
something
that
representative
mcguire
mentioned
a
moment
ago.
The
minutes
in
that
meeting
say
that
the
committee
amended
this
bill
to
bring
in
section
22,
5-108,
f-1
and
amend
it
to
quote,
require
a
civil
penalty
of
five
hundred
dollars
per
day
for
filing
failing
to
file
a
report,
and
that
was
approved
by
the
committee.
D
I
know
that
senator
case
raised
some
objection
to
how
broad
it
might
be
and
whether
it
would
apply
to
some
some
small
candidate
committees
and
but
it
would
the
whole
bill
was
then
passed
with
only
senator
scott
objecting
to
to
the
to
the
motion.
D
But
I
think
that
the
senator
scott's
objections
can
be
redressed
by
some
language,
indicating
that
the
500
per
day
is
a
penalty
intended
to
be
applied
to
independent
expenditure
organizations.
But
my
main
question
my
main
point
is:
I
don't
see
that
in
this
bill
in
this
draft
it
was
at
it
was
supposed
to
be
added
to
this
draft
by
the
vote
at
the
sheridan
meeting
in
in
september,
and
I
don't
see
it
in
the
current
draft.
D
So
that's
my
question
and
I
would
support
very
strongly
support,
making
sure
that
what
was
voted
in
in
september
is
actually
added
in
to
the
bill
that
goes
to
the
full
senate
or
the
full
legislature
in
general
in
the
next
session.
Thank
you
I'll
stand
for.
G
T
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
there
may
be
just
some
confusion
about
what
the
committee
has
done
and
what
they've
already
done.
This
is
actually
the
second
bill
from
the
secretary
of
state's
office
that
the
committee's
looking
at
the
first
that's
being
referenced.
Was
the
campaign
reports,
amendments
22,
lso
55..
T
The
committee
did
vote
to
sponsor
that
bill
and
they
did
add
in
a
provision
that
does
amend
225,
108
f,
paragraph
1,
requiring
that
in
that
definition
or
where
that
currently
says
that
they
would
pay
500
for
a
failure
to
file
a
report
with
the
secretary
of
state.
It
now
would
say
500
per
day,
beginning
on
the
date
of
the
final
order
and
ending
when
the
report
is
filed
for
a
failure
to
file
a
report
with
the
secretary
of
state,
so
that
would
apply
to
reports
that
are
required
to
be
filed.
T
G
And
hopefully
that
answered
your
question,
mr
chestic,
I
do
remember.
We
immediately
put
forward
that
bill
because
we
didn't
think
we
had
any
other
amendments
forthcoming
questions
from
mr
chestic
sing.
None.
Thank
you
very
much
for
being
here
today,
ken
it's
nice,
seeing
you
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Next
up
steve
klein
the
wyoming
liberty
group.
W
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
hello
members
of
the
committee.
By
way
of
introduction,
my
name
is
steve
klein,
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
wyoming
liberty
group,
I
worked
for
y
liberty
in
cheyenne
from
2010
to
2015
full-time
I've
been
in
the
swamp
of
dc
since
2015.
I
work
full-time
nationwide
on
a
variety
of
free
speech
issues,
particularly
in
litigation.
W
I
did
cut
my
teeth
in
campaign
finance
law
and
they
are
well,
I
think,
they're
kind
of
sharp,
so
my
work
right
now
actually
has
two
different
lawsuits
in
the
state
arising
from
the
state
of
wyoming.
One
has
been
mentioned
by
senator
case.
The
other
is
currently
on
appeal
in
the
tenth
circuit,
after
winning
the
federal
ruling
in
cheyenne
against
the
100-yard,
no
electioneering
buffer
zone
that
wyoming
puts
around
polling
places
on
election
day,
both
of
those
instances.
I
should
add
you
know
I
come
to
this
committee.
W
I
will
offer
testimony.
I
will
give
you
my
opinion
before
I
go
off
and
and
file
any
lawsuits,
and
that
is,
I
will
continue
to
do
that,
whether
you
listen
or
not
so
to
kind
of
addressing
some
of
the
commentary
here.
This
is
strictly
a
registration
bill.
That's
before
you.
The
idea
here
is
is
not
really
about
the
the
actual
reports
that
need
to
be
filed
by
politically
engaged
organizations.
This
is
really
kind
of
an
advanced
and
mr
shone.
W
I
think
described
it
pretty,
well
that
this
is
just
about
when
you
engage
in
politics
register
with
the
secretary
of
state,
so
that
they
know
that
you
might
have
something
to
report
later
where
it
gets
awkward
in
the
lawsuit,
and
I
did
provide
a
copy
via
email
to
this
committee,
where
the
lawsuit
in
question
takes
that
next
step
is
kind
of
a
reaffirmation
of
the
last
40
years
or
so
of
campaign.
W
Finance
law-
and
I
know
this-
I
believe
it
will
come
as
maybe
a
surprise
to
some
members
of
this
committee,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
an
organization
that
engages
under
wyoming
law
in
electioneering,
communications
or
independent
expenditures.
Even
a
lot
of
them
does
not
necessarily
have
to
report
all
of
its
donors
constitutionally
speaking,
that's
been:
that's
not
a
citizens.
United
issue.
That's
actually
going
way
back
to
the
1980s.
W
The
organization
that
engages
in
mostly
in
political
stuff,
particularly
legislative
issues,
say
gun
rights,
say
pro-life
stuff
if
they
happen
to
put
out
a
voting
guide
that
doesn't
subject
all
of
their
donors
to
to
republic
reporting,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because,
if
they
don't
have
the
major
purpose
of
engaging
in
elections,
their
donors
may
be
giving
for
any
number
of
reasons
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
election.
It's
kind
of
a
double
edge,
it's
kind
of
an
exception
to
transparency
that
it
could
actually
be.
W
It
could
actually
be
confusing
or
even
non-informative,
by
putting
names
out
there
in
the
public
as
supporting
an
organization
that
is
not
necessarily
in
support
of
their
electoral
activity.
This
kind
of
goes
to
the
the
part
of
the
where
the
opinion
stands
now
in.
In
the
the
case,
and
again,
I
totally
understand
we're
still
in
litigation
we're
entering
discovery.
W
W
That's
been
uniformly
struck
down
as
vague
in
a
lot
of
other
courts
and
it's
just
not
really
holding
up
under
the
current
requirements
and
tailoring
under
the
first
amendment
and
that's
where
it
gets
kind
of
funny.
Is
that
let
me
let
me
say
this
that
if
my
client,
in
that
case,
the
gun
rights
organization,
had
even
filed
the
report
for
which
it
was
fined
500
for
not
filing
there
really
would
not
have
been
anything
to
put
in
that
report.
They
don't
have
earmarked
donations,
which
is
the
only
appropriate
way
of
having
reports
like
this.
W
Unless
you're
a
political
committee,
I've
probably
already
gone
off
into
a
very
confusing
jargon
there
and
I
apologize.
But
the
point
is
it's:
it's.
You
know
that
this
is
a
very
complex
area
of
the
law
and
I
know
you've
all
had
to
address
some
real
intricacies
with
redistricting,
and
this
is
really
no
less
important
than
that.
So
turning
to
the
bill,
I
did
put
in
written
written
testimony
here,
and
I
certainly
could
lean
on
that.
W
I
just
think
there
is
a
huge
problem
on
pages
of
pages
three
and
four
of
the
bill
parts
two
and
three
of
these
registration
requirements
requiring
an
organization
of
initial
initiative
and
referendum
organization
for
to
register
with
the
government,
even
if
it's
only
raised
as
little
as
one
dollar
probably
raises
some
serious
constitutional
problems,
part
three
even
making
them
register
just
because
they
intend
to
cause
some
time
in
the
future.
An
independent
expenditure,
electionary
communication
probably
also
constitutionally
problematic,
and
these
both
of
these
issues.
I'd
say
you
have
to
keep
in
mind.
W
If
you're
tracking
campaign
finance
political
spending
election
spending,
you
got
to
track
the
money,
it
can't
be
just
political
activity.
I
have
real
concerns
that
this
could
lead
to
complaints
against
a
bunch
of
citizens
forming
a
facebook
group,
especially
when
you
have
no
spending
thresholds.
Someone
might
argue:
hey
you
took
out
a
you
made
a
facebook
post
and
hey
you're,
paying
for
your
internet
service,
so
you
had
to
report
with
the
government.
W
Now
you
might
think
that's
crazy,
but
unfortunately
I've
seen
it
happen
in
other
states
and
I've
seen
complaints
and
I've
seen
that
all
sorts
of
nonsense
nationwide,
so
that's
kind
of
just
the
broad
strokes.
I
think
this
bill.
The
current
bill
does
need
minimum
amendments
of
serious
amendments
to
page
three
lines:
nine
to
page
four
lines,
eight
at
a
minimum.
Otherwise
I
do
think
it's
a
good
idea
raising,
as
they
pointed
out
on
page
nine,
raising
the
reporting,
the
actual
reporting
thresholds
to
a
thousand
dollars.
W
W
So
with
that,
thank
you
for
your
time
all
happy
to
take
questions.
G
Thank
you,
mr
klein.
Any
questions
from
the
committee
for
steve,
I'm
not
seeing
any
today,
mr
klein,
but
as
always
thank
you
for
being
here
and
good
to
see
you
in
the
legislative
room,
not
in
a
courtroom,
litigating
us
for
something
all
right.
Great
other
public
comment
in
the
audience,
seeing
no
one
stepping
forward.
Let
me
make
sure
no
one
else
on
the
internet,
no
one
else
raising
their
hand
in
the
room,
any
further
comment
or
questions
from
the
committee
on
the
bill
before
I
close
public
comment.
G
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I
would
like
to
discuss
with
the
committee
on
page
number
two
lines:
number
ten
and
eleven
removing
the
amount
of
one
thousand
dollars,
so
it
would
simply
be
any
organization
that
receives
contributes
or
expense
funds.
M
That
would
be
the
baseline
because,
as
we
heard
from
the
secretary
of
state's
office
anytime,
that
there
is
an
amount
and
there's
always
a
question,
there's
always
a
the
ability
to
well.
I
just
didn't
we
didn't
spend
more
than
that.
M
This
would
be.
The
presumption
would
be
that
if
you
are
receiving
funds
that
at
that
point
receiving
or
expending
funds,
then
at
that
point
you're
required
to
file
now
that
filing
may
be
that
it's
just
filing
and
there's
no
requirement
other
than
that
or
as
the
amount
goes
up
it
may
become
more
onerous.
M
G
Is
there
a
second
second
by
yin,
mr
shone?
Can
I
bring
you
back
up
here
again?
I
just
have
a
question
about
how
the
process
currently
works
or
does
work,
because
I
know
we
do
have
independent
expenditures,
not
a
whole
lot
that
are
currently
listed
so
hypothetically
when
it's
a
thousand
dollar
threshold.
G
V
We
wouldn't
know
other
than
asking
the
question
letting
them
know.
This
is
what
the
law
says
now
this
is
the
penalty,
if
later
on,
we
find
out
that
it
met
that
threshold,
but
short
of
that
there's
not
a
way
to
dig
into
their
finances
that
I
know
of.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'm
sorry
to
jump
in
front
of
the
good
senator
to
the
secretary
of
state's
office.
Are
you
aware
of
any
case
law,
whether
state
or
federal,
that
sets
a
financial
minimum
five
hundred
dollars
a
thousand
dollars?
Is
there?
Are
you
familiar
with
anything
like
that?
Thank
you,
mr.
V
M
V
Chairman
representative
mcguire,
there
is
case
law
that
I
wouldn't
be.
Probably
the
best
one
to
speak
of,
but
that's
taken
place
in
in
colorado
and
mine
are
saying
is
that
it
really
does
preserve
that
one
thousand
dollar
threshold.
V
I
do
know
that
there's
11
states
currently
sorry
13
states
that
have
the
thousand
dollar
threshold.
11
states
have
greater
than
a
thousand
dollar
threshold
and
there's
actually
24
states
that
have
less
than
a
thousand
dollar
thresholds.
V
Mr
chairman
representative,
there
are
states
that
have
no
threshold
anywhere
from
zero
to
250,
to
500,
to
750.
H
Mr
chairman,
it
would
seem
to
me
that
in
some
of
the
cases
it'd
be
fairly
easy
to
get
the
evidence
to
put
an
ad
in
the
newspaper
you
get
the
newspapers
rate
card
and
just
measure
how
big
it
is,
and
if
it's
big
enough,
you
know
they
went
over.
I
think
the
electronic
media,
the
traditional
ones,
I
think,
there's
there's
federal
requirements
for
reporting
there,
that
you
can
access
a
public
file
and
and
find
that
out.
H
It
seemed
to
me
the
difficulties
would
be
in
a
mailing
where
you'd
have
to
see
a
lot
of
it
or
figure
out
who
did
the
who
did
the
mailing
and
and
talk
to
talk
to
them
and
but
some
kind
of
electronic
thing
I
kind
of
get
an
electronic
ad
where
you're
paying
by
amount,
unless
you
get
cooperation
from
from
facebook
or
wherever
you're
buying
it
on,
would
be
miss
chairman,
I
think
more
difficult.
Would
it
not
would
it
depending
on
on
where
it
was?
V
Mr
chairman,
senator
scott,
I
think
you're
absolutely
right,
that's
just
the
nature
of
it.
Some
are
more
readily
available.
Others
are
not.
H
And
with
regard
to
having
a
threshold,
it
would
seem
to
me
that,
and
what
you're
doing
is
avoiding
the
case
where
somebody
takes
this
to
an
extreme
gets
after
somebody,
who's
mailed,
a
letter
to
a
bunch
of
friends
and
incurred
some
expense,
but
nothing
great,
mr
chairman,
or
avoid
the
instance
where
somebody
tried
to
enforce
it
against
somebody
who
just
posted
something
on
the
internet
and
wasn't
expending
great
amounts
of
money.
G
V
As
far
as
the
the
thousand
dollar,
it
was
again
something
that,
as
we
had
heard
about
the
case
happening
in
colorado
as
well
as
what
other
states
were
doing,
trying
to
strike
a
good
balance
when
you're
dealing
with
organizations,
because
it's
very
litigious,
as
we
know
as
far
as
what
would
happen
if
we
did
not
have
a
threshold,
I
think,
is
what
you're
asking
historically
since
2012
we've
been
getting
reports
about
only
independent
expenditures.
We
haven't
yet
had
one
for
electionary
communications,
but
in
regards
to
independent
expenditures.
V
We've
had
a
total
of
seven
organizations
that
have
filed
since
2012
and
some
in
many
of
those
election
years,
the
same
organization
has
filed,
but
in
total
seven
different
organizations
and
and
zero
of
those
filings
are
less
than
a
thousand.
G
V
Q
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
kind
of
trying
to
dial
in
on
the
implications
of
this
bill
and
following
the
word
organization
organization,
has
a
a
definition
of
the
bill,
but
I
would
I
would
submit
that
it's
really
really
broad
organization
means
any
corporation
partnership,
trade
union,
professional
association
or
civic,
fraternal
or
religious
group
or
other
prophet
or
non-profit
entity.
Stop
there
for
a
second.
Q
The
sole
proprietorship
is
a
for-profit
entity
now
or
any
other
entity
influencing
an
election,
and
then
there's
exception,
except
a
candidate's
campaign
committee,
political
action,
committee
or
political
party.
Q
Q
Q
V
And
it's,
it
is
again
a
good
question
because
it
is
very
broad
and
that
was
initially
the
intent.
It
really
used
language
already
in
the
statutes
when
just
talking
about
corporations
and
organizations
and
trade
unions,
which
is
why
it's
being
struck
in
other
parts
of
that
bill
just
to
conform
to
that
definition.
V
And-
and
so
yes,
certainly
in
regards
to
free
speech
as
an
individual,
and
it
could
certainly,
you
know,
defer
to
you
know
to
lsl.
But
an
individual
has,
as
I
understand
those
first
cement
rights
to
do
that
type
of
activity.
They
would
not
be.
You
know
required,
then
to
have
to
form
as
an
individual
and
they
would
still
in
many
cases,
be
required
to
still
disclose
within
whatever
literature
it
is
that
they're
doing
who
they
are.
V
H
Senator
scott
chairman
and
and
I
would
inquire
of
the
attorneys
of
the
lso,
but
as
I
read
organization,
the
definition
on
page
four
lines
12
through
17,
it
looked
me
carefully:
crafted
to
exclude
individuals
that
that
was
the
the
big.
If
they'd
had
individuals
in
it,
you'd
have
to
be
asking
what's
different
from
the
the
person
definition
in
title
eight,
but
the
way
this
is
written,
I
think
it's
carefully
written
to
exclude
individuals.
Q
I'm
not
sure
because
it
says
or
any
other
entity
influencing
an
election,
but
suppose
even
individuals
are
excluded.
You
still
have
all
sorts
of
entities
that
would
would
be.
You
know
you,
you
could
have
two
people
they're,
no
longer
individuals
pool
their
money
to
do
something
now:
they're
an
organization
and
it's
just
to
take
out
a
newspaper
ad
or
put
up
a
sign.
Q
G
So
lso
do
you
have
thoughts
and
we'll
get
to
representative
career
in
just
a
second.
T
G
Q
On
the
top
of
go
ahead,
senator
casey,
so
let's
write
the
words
in
here
that
say
excluding
individuals,
then
you
have
the
situation
where
an
individual
has
free
reign,
but
also
that
it
begs
the
question
of
any
combination
of
individuals
and
let
me
check
when
I
go
to
coffee.
Together
we
put
money
in
a
hat
and
we're
an
organization
now.
R
Real
fast,
if
he's
jumping
in
on
this
topic,
yeah
no.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
You
know
senator
case's
put
his
fingers
on
the
what's
been
troubling
me
with
this,
and
I
and
I
I
didn't-
have
the
advantage
of
hearing
the
prior
discussions
being
new
to
the
committee,
but
you
know
one,
I'm
concerned
about
removing
the
threshold
to
this
definition
of
organization
and
other
entity
and
senator
case
absolutely
right.
R
Two
people
are
now
a
partnership
and
you
don't
even
have
to
have
a
written
agreement
on
that
I
mean
and
and
then,
when
you
move
back
up
to
page
3
and
line
17,
okay,
any
organization
with
no
threshold,
that's
in
there.
So
that
means,
for
example,
I
don't
know
you
know
the
unvaccinated
hospital
workers
of
washington
county
run.
A
newspaper
ad
supporting
me
right,
they're
supposed
to
report
it
or
they
violated
the
law.
H
G
T
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
All
of
the
above
is
that
some
of
that
language-
and
I
was
just
double
checking
through
the
statute,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
the
these
concerns
being
expressed
are
already
in
statute
that
that's
something
that
these
groups
already
have
to
do,
and
so
this
isn't
so
much
a
change.
T
It's
just
clarifying
who
it
applies
to
so
the
religious
organizations
are
already
captured
very
existing
and
they
would
have
to
at
least
as
far
as,
if
they're,
making
political
expenditures
in
an
amount
greater
than
500,
they
would
have
to
report
those
those
expenditures,
and
that,
I
think,
is
something
that
that
has
been
upheld
under
existing
law
in
certain
circuits.
I
I
do
think
there
are
there's
still
some
issues
there
that
haven't
quite
been.
T
N
Jump
on
in
sure-
and
just
I
mean
it's,
my
understanding
having
been,
I
guess,
married
to
a
church
employee
that
the
line,
at
least
when
it
comes
to
say
your
tax
exempt
status-
is
that
you
can
advocate
for
an
issue
that
you
believe
in,
but
you
cross-landly
advocate
for
a
candidate,
and
so
I
guess
the
other
question
in
this
page.
Four
by
you
know,
paragraph
four
is
what
qualifies
as
influencing
an
election.
That's
the
other
element
and
does
issue
advocacy
count
towards
true
political
advocacy.
N
Are
you
just
saying
what
you
believe
without
endorsing
a
particular
candidate
that
might
be
additional
nuance?
You
want
to
pay
attention
to.
I
don't
know
the
answer
date.
I
just
had
no
experience,
mr
chairman
senator.
C
I
think
the
primary
concern
there
for
that
non-profit
religious
organization
is
their
tax
exempt
status
with
the
irs,
and
it
really
is
an
irs
determination
for
that
concern.
I
think,
as
applied
to
this
bill,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
lsr
mr
shown
whether
or
not
this
only
applies
during
a
campaign
right,
and
so
it
has
to
be
a
campaign
cycle
during
a
general
or
a
primary
and,
as
senator
case
has
pointed
out,
a
ballot
proposition,
so
thinking
just
kind
of
broadly.
C
Of
course
the
law
already
says
this,
so
we're
not
doing
anything
new.
But,
theoretically,
you
know
a
church
provides
for
a
billboard.
That's
pro-life,
you
know,
do
they
need
to
report
that
and
I
would
think
not
so
any
of
those
that
it's
not
going
to
a
ballot
initiative
right.
That
is
not
regarding
a
primary
or
a
general
campaign.
It's
just
a
general.
C
You
know
position
that
they
are
communicating
out
and
it's
not
associated
necessarily
with
a
campaign.
So
those
concerns,
I
don't
think,
are
warranted
or
related
to
this
bill.
I
would
say
back
on
the
motion
on
the
amendment
on
that
thousand
dollar
threshold.
C
Some
conversa,
I
have
a
conversa,
a
piece
of
that.
That's
related,
I
guess
maybe
back
on
track
to
that
motion,
whether
or
not
the
concept
associated
with
signing
under
penalty
of
perjury,
because
the
concern
that
the
secretary
of
state
has
expressed
was
there's
no
way
for
us
to
know
if
they
have
expended
any
dollar
amount,
whether
it's
five
dollars
or
a
thousand,
do
you
think
there's
any
merit
to
the
penalty
of
perjury
concept
to
secretary
of
state
or
members
of
the
committee.
G
V
Mr
chairman
senator
another
cut
adding
that
type
of
language
in
there.
I
don't
think
that
it
would.
It
hurts
us
at
all.
I
don't
it's
yeah.
G
The
nurse
got
nope
good,
all
right,
we're
still
on
the
motion
for
taking
out
the
thousand
dollar
and
not
having
a
threshold
for
the
discussion
on
that
motion
I'll
just
favor.
The
motion,
please
raise
your
hand.
H
H
Because
they're
on
the
other
side,
is
that
an
electioneering
thing
that
would
cause
them
to
have
to
register.
V
H
And,
mr
chairman,
that's
I
was
aware
of
that,
but
I'm
also
aware
of
the
state
of
the
mailing
list
that
my
church
uses
and
all
members.
G
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
going
to
the
end
of
the
bill,
and
I
would
ask
for
lso
to
work
a
little
magic
because
I
don't
have
the
language
written
out,
but
I
would
ask
that
the
bill
refer
to
the
penalty
provision
and
in
prior
testimony.
I
think
that
we
had
the
some
people
had
the
wrong
number.
It's
I
believe
it's
22-25-108.
M
It
would
be
the
appropriate
penalty
provision
with
regard
to
that
penalty
provision
that
once
notification
has
been
made
or
communication
has
been
confirmed
with
the
group
that
five
days
after
that,
the
penalty
provision
would
become
per
day.
So
if
it's
a
500
initial
penalty
with
200
thereafter
that
that
would
become
after
the
group
has
been
notified
five
days
after
that,
it
would
become
a
daily
fine.
T
I
just
mr
chairman,
I
I
want
to
review
what
the
committee,
I
suppose
it
may
be
helpful
to
review
what
what
the
change
was
in
22
lso
55
and
not
to
say
that
we
couldn't
apply
something
similar
to
this
bill,
but
that
bill
now
has
a
provision
in
2225,
108,
f
amending
paragraph
one
so
where
it
would
require-
and
I
would
say
five
hundred
dollars
per
day,
beginning
on
the
date
of
the
final
order
and
ending
when
the
report
is
filed
for
a
failure
to
file
a
report
with
the
secretary
of
state.
T
Now,
section
f
has
provisions
where
it
would
give
the
basic.
Essentially
they
they
send
notice
and
they've
got
21
days
from
the
date
of
that
notice
to
send
a
final
order
and
then,
after
receipt
of
that
final
order
is
500.
Fine
kick
in.
T
So
that's
how
it
would
work
under
that
bill
draft
so
that
there
is
that
change
there
again,
that
that
would
apply
if
they
have
to
file
with
the
secretary
of
state
and
they
don't.
So
if
we
want
to
do
something
different
here
that
certainly
whatever
the
committee
wants
to
do.
But
I
just
wanted
to
remind
you
that
has
been
done
to
that
extent
in
that
other
bill.
M
G
T
G
G
R
Go
ahead.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
page
3
line
18.
I
would
move
after
the
word
expenditure
insert
in
excess
or
excuse
me
or
greater
than
one
thousand
dollars
and
then
strike
or
electioneering
communication.
G
And
so
we
did
have
a
motion
to
table
that
we're
going
to
suspend
if
that's
okay
for
a
second
ripped
into
mcguire.
It's
not
tables,
it's
just
we'll.
Just
suspend
it.
We're
going
to
go
on
to
this
motion
on
page
3
line
18,
putting
that
thousand
dollar
limit
and
making
it
specific
only
to
independent
expenditures
and
not
electionary
communications
I'll
go
ahead,
and
second
that
do
you
want
to
further
explain
representative
grier,
where
you're
going.
R
Again,
mr
chairman,
I
I
think
we
get
into
the
difficulties
of
what
is
an
entity
again.
You
know
a
loose
association
of
people,
friends
at
the
coffee
shop,
and
I
think,
by
putting
in
a
threshold
here,
we
can
at
least
avoid
some
of
that
in
it
you
know
unintended
consequences
of
citizens
speaking
and
you
know
it
requires
some
effort
to
organize
to
raise
a
thousand
dollars
to
influence
an
election,
so
that
that's
my
thought
on
that.
T
Sherman,
I
I
actually
want
to
address
something
that
I
I
think
may
change
what
what
representative
peru
is
seeking
here
and
that's
just
with
the
way
that
the
bill
is
structured.
T
T
Paragraph
two
is
a
subset
of
that
subsection,
so
that
thousand
dollars
would
apply
well
to
paragraph
3
and
I
think
would
apply
to
paragraph
2
as
well.
The
way
this
is
currently
drafted,
I
I
think
there
may
have
been
some
interpretation
that
it
would
not
apply
to
the
ballot
propositions,
and
that
would
be
true
if
it
were
a
separate
subsection,
but
the
way
it's
currently
drafted
that
thousand
dollar
limit
would
appear
to
be
applicable
to
both
paragraphs
two
and
paragraphs
three
already.
T
So,
if,
if
representative
gear
wants
to
make
that
amendment,
it
would
likely
fit
better
up
in
subsection
c.
But
that's
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
to
the
committee.
R
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
I'm
I'm
reading
that
and
we
left
the
thousand
dollars
in
and
see
so
we
yeah.
Let
me
let
me
withdraw
my
10,
my
motion
and
I
need
to
review
the
statute.
B
Robin
again,
you
have
an
amendment
as
well.
Yes,
mr
chairman,
I
moved
to
amend
the
enactment
date
too.
Effective
immediately
upon
passage
into
law
is.
H
Senator
scott,
mr
chairman
question,
for
for
the
maker
of
the
motion,
how
would
you
feel
I
I
really
reluctant
to
put
an
immediate,
effective
date
where
a
private
organization
gets
can
get
hit?
Theoretically
the
day
after
the
governor
signed
something?
H
B
G
Mcguire's
seconded
it
he
seems
amenable
and
then
mr
shone.
I
will
ask
because
I
kind
of
mentioned
if
there
is
a
better
date
in
your
mind,
to
have
this
go
into
enactment.
G
G
C
C
G
Q
It
means
it's
not
coordinated
with
the
campaign
committee.
It's
a
third
sell,
a
third
party.
This
is
that's.
The
citizens.
United
basis
was
independent
expenditures.
V
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
on
page
10
of
the
bill.
It
does
have
the
the
definition
that
currently
exists
in
the
statutes
about
independent
expenditure.
It's
in
the
comments
and
it's
exactly
as.
G
Mr
hopkins-
and
that
was
what
you're
going
to
say:
okay,
so
with
that
committee,
let's
break
for
lunch
until
1,
45
and
we'll
come
back
finish
up
this
bill,
hopefully
quickly.
If
over
lunch,
lso
can
structure,
representative
mcguire's
amendment-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
email
it
to
us,
so
we
can
see
the
verbiage
and
then
we'll
come
back
as
well.
The
chairman
greer's
motion
and
thoughts
on
perhaps
another
amendment
so
with
that
we'll
be
in
recess
to
145.