Meeting Summary for Utah Progressive Caucus General Membership Meeting Tuesday, February 28, 2023, 7:00-8:30 p.m. via internet conference Presiding and Conducting: Emily Olsen, Chair Other executive committee officers in …
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING Utah Progressive Caucus 7:00-8:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 16, 2023 via internet conference Presiding and Conducting: Emily Olsen, Chair Approve Meeting Minutes from February 28, 2023 meeting Announcements …
Meeting Minutes for GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING Utah State Democratic Progressive Caucus 7:00-8:30 p.m., January 4, 2022 Presiding and Conducting: Emily Olsen, Chair The meeting minutes from the April 14, 2022 …
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING Utah Progressive Caucus 7:00-8:30 p.m., Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023 via internet conference Presiding and Conducting: Emily Olsen, Chair Approve Meeting Minutes from January 3, 2023 meeting Announcements …
2023 Utah Legislative Session Disability Rights HB 13 | Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities Amendments Rep. J. Stenquist | PASSED: 14 Feb 2023, Draft of Enrolled Bill …
Utah State Democratic Progressive Caucus 7:00-8:30 p.m., April 14, 2022 via internet conference Presiding and Conducting: Emily Olsen, Chair Approve Meeting Minutes from January 10, 2022 meeting Announcements Review of …
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING Utah State Progressive Caucus 7:00-8:30 p.m., January 4, 2022 via internet conference Presiding and Conducting: Emily Olsen, Chair This meeting is open to the public – please …
HB0022 Medical Examiner Amendments Nelson, Merrill F. Requires the chief medical examiner to investigate deaths resulting directly from actions of a law enforcement officer and establishes a criminal penalty if …
By Emily Olsen, Chair, Utah State Democratic Progressive Caucus Speech given at March on Utah for Voting Rights rally on August 28, 2021, at the Utah State Capitol Before …
Justice Alito knows better, and his catering to the Big Lie adds judicial credence to a house of cards that will fall in time. The question I ask, though, is why did the Supreme Court’s conservative majority even choose to rule on this case, if not to try to uphold other more discriminatory voter legislation by establishing this precedent?