Anne Berbert emphasizes financial security, human dignity in House District 15 race
Photo supplied, Anne Berbert
Anne BerbertAnne Berbert is a Democratic candidate for the House District 15 seat. Below are her responses to a six-question survey sent to her by the Standard-Examiner. The Standard-Examiner made an attempt to contact each candidate involved in a competitive race in Weber and Davis counties.
1. Why is the position you are running for important?
When one party holds power for decades, checks and balances become obsolete. The current supermajority can do whatever they wish, from ignoring citizen-led ballot initiatives to handing Utah’s land and water over to billionaires for data centers. House district representatives have the power to change that, but only if voters change their representatives.
2. What unique qualities, attributes, skills, and experiences do you possess that make you the best candidate in this race?
I have two graduate degrees, including an MBA. I’ve worked in healthcare, tech, finance, and academia. I’ve managed the official US residence in Samoa, hosting veterans, Peace Corps volunteers, heads of state, and children from Samoa Victim Support Group, helping me to understand diplomacy on micro and macro levels.
3. Please explain your priorities if elected, as well as why you believe you are uniquely capable of achieving those priorities.
My goals are to restore financial security and human dignity through real solutions. I believe the Great Salt Lake is the economic keystone for the State and must be restored. I would like to increase the minimum wage to bolster the money supply and grow business. I also believe that collective bargaining increases wages for union members, and I want to build more starter homes to make home ownership more attainable. I believe limited government means government should not micromanage a patient’s access to lifesaving medical care or their neighbor’s kid’s reading lists. And, I treat immigrants as human beings; dehumanization costs more than inclusion.
My leadership style balances data-driven decision making with empathy, prioritizing people through sound data. If a solution requires harming one constituent to protect another, it’s not a viable solution. I support the Constitution, and I believe in checks and balances, due process, the freedom of religious belief and non-belief, and the freedom to speak without fear of political retribution. I believe government leaders are servants to the people they are elected to represent, and as such, we have a responsibility to ensure every decision is backed by a combination of factual evidence and compassion.
4. Please describe how you view the importance of compromise in politics and provide an example from your own experiences that highlights your perspective.
I recently worked across the aisle with a state senator to protect minors with gender dysphoria who had been grandfathered into a temporary law. Their ongoing treatment access was threatened by legislation that sought to ensure no minor received the care endorsed by the State report, including those who were already being treated. Removing care from patients already undergoing treatment can have significant clinical impacts that legislators are not medically qualified to manage. The state senator who worked to protect these minors had been the opposing counsel in my own son’s court case. I could’ve targeted him aggressively; instead, I supported his efforts to at least partially protect some minors. I do still ardently disagree with HB174 because neither data (see the Swedish Guidelines, p. 4, and Cass Review Recommendation 6) nor empathy support banning clinical trial care access.
As a result, I think compromise is a mixed bag when it meets in the middle but still harms a marginalized population. I believe human dignity is a line in the sand that should never be compromised.
5. How will you balance the views of the vocal public, your political party, and your own understanding and knowledge as an elected representative?
The answer is simple: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These are the two great mediators of conflict and protectors of freedom. Right to life depends on water and supersedes the right to wealth. Checks and balances highlight problematic gerrymandering and court stacking. A question I always ask myself is: “If the opposite party were doing this, would I be at peace with it?” If the answer is no, it’s not okay for me or my party to pursue it either.
6. What is the best way for readers to contact you and/or get more information about your platform?
Please visit my website at voteanneberbert.com. Feel free to email me at voteanneberbert@gmail.com. Follow me on Instagram and Facebook at anber888 and Threads @voteanneberbert. And, catch my interviews on the Davis County Democrats YouTube channel and League of Women Voters Davis YouTube channel.


