Winter, Bartlett face off to fill House District 28 seat

Two candidates will face off in the 2022 General Election in the State House of Representatives for District 28 race. Incumbent John R. Winter (R) is being challenged by Kimberly M. Bartlett (D).

The candidates provided bios and answers to five questions submitted by readers and asked by the IR staff.

John R. Winter

Wyoming HD 28 representing Hot Springs County – portions of Big Horn County, Park County and Fremont County.

Born and raised at Cody and reside on Kirby Creek near Thermopolis with my wife, Diane, of 26 years. Graduated from the University of Wyoming with a degree in Range Management and worked for the BLM as a Range Aid, Range Tech, Range Conservationist and Wild Horse Specialist over the course of 14 years. Returned to the private sector in agriculture and as a big game outfitter in the Thorofare area of the Yellowstone between Cody and Jackson Hole. Grew up working in the outfitting business and served as President of the Wyoming Outfitter and Guides Association. Sold my outfitting business, Two Ocean Pass Outfitting, after 38 years in the industry. Served in the 65th and 66th Legislative Sessions of the House of Representatives in 2019-2020 and 2021-2022.

From Wyoming For Wyoming.

Kimberly M. Bartlett

I am a moderate centrist running as the Democratic nominee for House District 28. A small business owner with an educational background in business, law and human rights, and an interest in state legislative issues, she believes public service is part of her duty to her community. Economic development is her greatest concern, including a desire to balance business growth to retain Wyoming’s best and brightest young people with the state’s agricultural and ranching heritage of wide open spaces. Her platform focuses on quality of life issues designed to encourage business growth in Wyoming. She is married to 4th generation Wyomingite John Fenton, from Fremont County. John’s ancestor, Georgia Dlugosh, owned a clothing store where Common Ground is now. His great uncle, Job “Johnson” Fenton, was the third Sheriff of Big Horn County. The unincorporated town of Fenton, Wyo., named after his family, borders Big Horn and Park Counties.

The candidates provided answers to six questions submitted by readers and asked by the IR staff. Answers were held to a maximum of 150 words, and in the case of two part questions, 200 words. Those questions and the candidates responses are as follows:

1. Do you support the 30x30 Federal Land Program? Explain why.

Winter: I absolutely do not support the 30x30 Land Grab that the Biden Administration is proposing. The name of this program has now been changed to ”America the Beautiful”. The purpose of this program is to put 30% of our land and water into a preservation status by 2030. In addition, the ultimate goal is to “protect” 50% of our land and water by 2050. The bottom line purpose of this “preservation” effort is to combat Climate Change which in my estimation is an overall hoax.

A large portion of our state has already been subjected to this effort in the forms of Wilderness areas and National Parks. Obtaining Conservation Easements in Perpetuity from our private land owners is an additional method of satisfying their goal of 50% control of our land. The ranch in the Casper Area which recently sold to the BLM is another example of what this program is designed to do.

Bartlet: Executive Order 14008, Sec. 216, and the resulting plan, Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful, 2021, states “[I]nstead of focusing land conservation efforts primarily on Western public lands ... agencies should support collaborative conservation efforts across the country.” Those conservation efforts “must respect the rights of private property owners” and should “recognize the co-benefits that working lands or areas managed for multiple use may offer.” Federal agencies are directed to “support locally led conservation and restoration efforts” and to “incentivize voluntary conservation efforts and provide new sources of income for American farmers, ranchers, and forest stewards.” The program seeks to “help local communities achieve their own conservation priorities and vision” and recognizes the “oversized contributions that farmers, ranchers, forest owners, fishers, hunters, rural communities, and Tribal Nations already make ... encouraging these remarkable efforts.” Therefore, Wyoming is not the focus of 30x30, and is already compliant with its goals.

2. What is your opinion of federal government overreach vs. state sovereignty?

Winter: Federal overreach seems to be a continual problem on various State priorities. Two issues that really stand out to me are the land management issues and our wildlife management concerns. These Federal land management Agencies seem to think that they should manage their domain as a kingdom backed by gun toting Bureaucrats. I believe this is an unnecessary policy in this State and I fail to see anything of benefit coming from it.

Relative to wildlife management, the main concern I have was the ability of the Federal Government to stop the planned Grizzly Bear Hunt as planned by our Wyoming Game and Fish Department a couple of years ago. I believe that our State wildlife employees are the experts in this realm. They have monitored the bear for years since they were placed on the Endangered Species List, and they have the data to back up their positions.

Bartlet: Since federal government overreach is unconstitutional by definition, this answer focuses on federalism: a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Article 1, Sec. 8 enumerates federal powers, and the US Supreme Court has interpreted the “Necessary and Proper” clause as enlarging, rather than limiting, federal powers. Amendments 13, 14 and 15 allow Congress (or the federal judiciary) oversight of a state’s control over its citizenry. Additionally, the Spending Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8) allows the federal government to incentivize state behaviors by conditioning the receipt of certain federal monies. The 10th Amendment has not had a significant impact limiting federal powers. Supreme Court rulings determined that while the federal government cannot “commandeer” state legislative or executive branches, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution explicitly provides that state courts must follow federal law, even if it overrides state laws or constitutions.

3. Are you for or against Medicaid expansion in Wyoming? Explain why.

Winter: I am adamantly opposed to Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid, as it is currently structured does an exceptional amount of good for the people that it now serves. To expand Medicaid will serve to bring our society closer and closer Socialized Medicine and Healthcare. If an expansion occurs, there will be a run on it and those who really need it will be lost in the fray. In addition, we as a society are having a hard time filling jobs in the current climate of work force disinterest in finding a job. Our Federal Government is contributing to this attitude with all their free money being sent out to the public as well as an increase in welfare programs. It seems that the current Federal Administration is bent on making its citizens dependents on handouts from the government.

We must maintain our independent spirit and promote self-reliance, not dependence on any government entity.

Bartlet: Medicaid Expansion is good for Wyoming. Our neighbors who make less than $24,400/ year and are not pregnant, disabled, elderly or blind, including low wage workers, new small business owners, and entrepreneurs, have no meaningful access to health insurance. Persons who delay medical care because of lack of insurance have worse outcomes, are not productive employees, and like our own Laurie Kelley, risk death. Uncompensated care costs our hospitals roughly $120 million/year; leads to service reductions (closing maternity wards in Kemmerer, Riverton and Rawlins); and increases private health insurance costs. The federal government pays 90% of Medicaid Expansion costs. Wyoming has given up over $1 billion in assistance so far. The 38 states who have accepted Medicaid Expansion (including Montana) keep it, as it proves to be fiscally advantageous, increases worker productivity, and aids economic development and business expansion.

4. What would be your top policy subject to introduce in a bill to the State Legislature?

Winter: Relative to my top policy subject for Bill Introduction, I believe we have too many laws on the books now and we should work to rescind many of them. Situations change each year for our State and these changes require the legislature to reassess those developments and tweak a given law to meet the needs of the State citizenry.

A good example is the increase in land values and subsequent tax increases. These are times when laws should be adjusted to meet the needs and demands of Wyoming’s residents.

Bartlet: Rather than introducing new bills, I look forward to supporting existing bills and topics of consideration. For example, the Joint Revenue Committee is discussing property tax reform, Medicaid Expansion, potential state revenue from large trusts, and revenue options for local governments. The Joint Travel, Wildlife, Recreation and Cultural Resources Committee is exploring how to make Hot Springs State Park a top tier recreation destination, create film incentives, and expand outdoor recreation. The Joint Agriculture, State/Public Lands, and Water Resources Committee is debating expanding the definition of livestock. The Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee is considering workforce housing, an independent redistricting commission, and ranked choice voting among other topics. Allowing political subdivisions to invest funds is already a Constitutional question which will be on the general ballot. If constituents have issues they are concerned about which are not currently being addressed, I look forward to sponsoring those bills.

5. Name two things you support in the state budget and two things you would like to see cut from funding in the state budget.

Winter: I think education is a top priory for most folks in Wyoming, however, we spend extreme amounts of money on our schools but do not seem to be getting the return on our investment that we expect. There are some school districts that are putting a lot of emphasis on vocational education which I wholeheartedly support. I believe many of our junior colleges are putting more emphasis this direction as well and they should be encouraged and rewarded.

I really struggle with the things that go on at our University of Wyoming, i.e., Gender Studies and the whole transgender focus in the Sororities and other liberal trends at the University.

The school administrators for both Higher Education and local school districts must be held accountable for proper outcomes for the students. I do not believe that is occurring. Responsible people must be placed in elected positions to resolve many of these questionable practices.

Bartlet: After reviewing the State Budget (SF 0001) and Individual Agency Budget Requests through the State Budget Office, overall, Wyoming is doing a good job managing tax dollars. While I support many of the services our state provides, increasing workforce development via the Governor’s Wyoming Innovation Partnership with Community Colleges, and the Department of Health’s work on mental health, substance abuse treatment, and home health options for seniors are two I would highlight. It is important to scrutinize line item expenses in the budget. For instance, a $1 million expenditure for an acoustics study at the State Capitol seems excessive, as does the $2.5 million charge for 3-D imaging of the state for use by the Dept. of Revenue in Property Tax valuation. Additionally, small things, like the duplication of $10,000 for State Superintendent transition funds - probably an oversight - do add up in such a large budget.

6. Regarding private property rights, what are your thoughts on how to balance development of one’s private property while maintaining quality of life expectations of area property owners? Do you support each county having a Land Use Plan with the right to deny or approve land use change requests?

Winter: I am firmly committed to preserving private property rights, but in a civil society there must be order in all things. I believe each county government must establish a system to address development and I believe Counties in the State have addressed this issue in some form or another. These efforts are public forums so all concerns from the public can be addressed. Through the public process, there are rules that are established, and through this effort, property owners have a right of regress if they feel they are being adversely impacted.

The rules have been established and there is a process to address any changes that may be deemed necessary. A volunteer board from the general public has been established to review land use requests and to assist in resolving issues. Our County has been experiencing some of these conflicts of late, but through the public process, I believe they have been adequately addressed and resolved in an amicable manner.

I do support each County having a Land Use Plan with the right to deny or approve land use changes. As I said previously, I think the plan is working.

Bartlet: The US Supreme Court determined private property owners have the right to develop their properties as they see fit, as long as that development does not violate zoning regulations or create either a private nuisance (the use of one’s property in a manner that causes annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or injury to another individual’s use or enjoyment of their private land), or a public nuisance (pollution, interfering with the use of public spaces, or the creation of public health hazards).

See Eubank v. City of Richmond, Cusack v. City of Chicago, and Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge. According to Wyo. Stat. § 9-8-301, while local governments are required to have Land Use Plans defining policies, visions, goals and objectives, “such plans shall not be construed as a substitute for, or equivalent to, duly enacted local zoning regulations, which have the force and effect of law.” Additionally, it states, “Nothing in this article shall allow any local government to use a local land use plan as authority to deny or restrict a permissible land use or physical development which is not restricted or prohibited under existing zoning regulations.” Without zoning regulations, cities and counties cannot deny land use change requests.