Monitoring politicians and the legislative process is a full-time job, and most people don’t have time to focus on these things, even if it is right under their noses. My journalism isn’t a full-time job, either. Much like you, reader, I have a job I must attend and work diligently at in order to get by and enjoy a few creature comforts. Reporting, as a steady gig, is something I’m working toward.
In this same vein, I’ve seen quite a few residents of House District 46 questioning things about their current representative, Jacob Rosecrants. Two major concerns jumped out at me while reading political posts on various social media. First, Rosecrants once had a protective order filed against him. Second, some people seemed miffed that the only job Rosecrants has is being a paid representative, which I’ll be honest, seemed fairly odd to me at the time.
As a journalist, I think it is vital to pull back the curtains, allowing people to see the answers to the questions they are asking. I completely acknowledge it can look like a hit piece, and I don’t really care. If it provides answers to questions, then I’ll dredge through the work to provide a result. It is up to you, reader, to glean anything from the reporting.
For complete transparency, I did talk via phone to both Rosecrants and Rougier, along with contacting them both by various social medias and text. Ultimately, both declined to give any further insight to my reporting, concerning either the issue of protective orders or the Ethics Commission questions I posed to both. And as Rosecrants said himself, “I know what you are doing, and its all good because its a free country.”
In 2009, Rosecrants did indeed have a petition for protective order filed against him by Robin Rougier, the long-time partner (his phraseology, not mine) of his.
I’m aware that some of this information, likely from past mailers, has been circulated within HD 46. I have neither seen these mailers, nor I have I been able to find any legacy media that addresses this subject matter. The stamping is hard to read for some, so here is a more clear dating of the filing:
I did find a Facebook post that mentioned the information of the mailers, though it didn’t provide an image of them. The post goes on that Rougier made a statement about the incident. I couldn’t find a post from Rougier or Rosecrants, so I’ll take it from Senator Mary Boren:
Rougier, did in fact, dismiss it, but it was actually nine days later. Boren’s post showed a snapshot from OSCN, but I wanted to actually show the court document.
So why is this information important? For some, it isn’t, but I look at connections, especially with legislation that our elected officials pass. Earlier this year, Rosecrants, one of the authors, touted having HB 3286 signed into law by Governor Stitt. This bill is referred to as the Homicide Prevention Act. It specifically addresses stalking, along with adding and increasing penalties upon conviction. It also addresses protective orders.
I will note that if you go back and read above, Rougier states that Rosecrants did indeed stalk her. Specifically, it says “Daily-computer/following/detaining me from leaving.” As past personal issues may not be relevant for some constituents, when legislation begins passing, creating harsher punishments for those convicted, a closer look at what inspired this legislation is valid. If you search 3286 on Rosecrants’ Facebook profile, you’ll see where he refers to this as a passion project. He also posted a picture of the signing.
Behind his left shoulder stands Rougier. It can be inferred that she stands there for multiple reasons: as a proud supporter of her partner, and also as someone who has been stalked and filed a protective order twice.
In 2016, Rougier filed another protective order against a man she was in a relationship with: Scott Bacon.
And he, in turn, filed one against her a day later.
I could add plenty of photos of court documents, but I’ll sum it up as concisely as I can. On July 19, Rougier dismissed her protective order stating “Hasn’t had any contact. I no longer feel him as a threat.”
On July 25, the judge ruled that upon consideration of the evidence, Bacon’s protective order was denied.
Both provided statements to the court when filing their protective orders. Again, a quick summary is that Rougier claimed Bacon became physical with her. Bacon claimed it was a verbal confrontation. He also stated he was arrested for domestic assault. Bacon was not accused of stalking. Again, why does this matter? The Homicide Prevention Act.
Six years after this incident, Rosecrants states that his own passion project came to fruition. Even going so far to claim to purposefully keeping it under the radar, away from politics and the fact that he is a minority party member. The bill was first introduced on January 1, 2022, being signed by the governor on May 25, 2022, and a whole slew of dates in between going through the legislative process. I’m not sure who exactly Rosecrants refers to when he stated he wanted to keep it under the radar.
His work on this bill is commendable, but there are questions on exactly where his passions originated. Anytime a bill is championed and passed, especially when it lays a heavier hand upon the citizenry, complete transparency should be a hallmark that is unquestioned, but in this case, Rosecrants clearly didn’t think it mattered.
If you take a quick step back to 2016, that year has another significance, which is the first time Rosecrants ran for office in HD 46. Failing to win, Rosecrants would become a representative for his district within a year, winning a special election. By 2018, he would be campaigning for reelection, spending money that would benefit him and Rougier.
In tomorrow’s post, I’ll show where a lot of Rosecrants’ campaign money goes: his partner and friends.
Semper Fidelis