07-04-09  »  Most Views: Top of Utah's Fourth of July... (892 views)  |  Most Comments: Guilty plea in Ponzi case (7 Comments)


Home » News RSS Icon » Story View
Bookmark and Share...



Add News Feed to...

AddThis Feed Button

Story Photos

The paper chase




Thursday, August 28, 2008  |  4 Comments [ View ]

Inching back from the precipice

We spend a fair amount of time in this space kicking the hind-parts of Utah legislators. Almost always, they deserve it.

But today we find ourselves in the curious position of patting them on the back for displaying uncustomary common sense on a topic they've usually been less than reasonable about: citizen petitions.

Specifically, we refer to the voter-referenda process. The latest example was 2007's referendum on school vouchers in Utah; the Legislature voted -- and the governor signed the bill into law -- to give taxpayer money to private schools. Two-thirds of Utahns opposed the law, and enough signatures were collected in enough counties to place the "yes" or "no" vote on the ballot.

The voucher law was defeated by about 2-to-1.

Over the past couple of weeks, some lawmakers have been pondering whether to toughen the requirements for voter referenda. Currently, backers of a referendum need to get 10 percent of voters in 15 of Utah's 29 counties to place a question on the ballot.

This is markedly different from Utah's initiative process. (Initiatives propose new laws; referenda ask voters whether they approve of a law already on the books.) If you're backing an initiative, state law requires you to obtain petitions containing "legal signatures equal to 5 percent of the cumulative total of all votes cast for all candidates for governor at the last regular general election at which a governor was elected; and from each of at least 26 Utah State Senate districts, legal signatures equal to 5 percent of the total of all votes cast in that district for all candidates for governor at the last regular general election at which a governor was elected."

That's a steep hill to climb. Lawmakers made it tougher several years ago because they like to be the ones who make laws -- the only ones who make laws.

But they had always taken a comparatively magnanimous view of the referenda process. The philosophy was: We'll make the laws, but if enough people strongly disagree, they should have an easier time of setting us straight.

Then came the voucher defeat -- a stinging rebuke to legislators. It seems to have given some lawmakers a reason to contemplate restricting voters' ability to get referenda on the ballot. A Salt Lake City newspaper reported last week that Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble, R-Provo, complained of the Legislature constantly and frivolously being second-guessed by voters.

Such lawmaker comments highlight two unattractive qualities about the person who makes them:

* An apparent conviction that just because they ran for office and got elected, they know better than mere voters.

* And any public official in our system of government who believes his or her actions shouldn't be subject to the occasional validation of voters is little more than an arrogant jackass and deserves to be yanked from office at the earliest opportunity.

We're happy to hear that Senate President John Valentine has since dismissed his underling's notion that the hurdles to voter referenda should be raised. Yes, he said, there had been discussion on the topic -- but the law is adequate.

Reason has prevailed.





 4 Comments

By: cami olson @ 08/28/2008, 6:44 PM

I think an excellent idea would be to form voluntary citizen initiative referendum committees ( each district, precinct ?) called principles and precedence and open to all ( HELD MONTHLY) FOR CITIZENS ... of any pursuasion for discourse and dialogue; WE THE PEOPLE communication, as well as constitutional oversight by the citizens who elected representatives who are under solemn obligation ( promise ) to sustain the order of law as written in constitution both of the state and federal United States of America , as standard operating procedure, and not consider that if you don't agree or like it , one can disregard or ignore it as that appears to be contempt of order of law. It is obligatory upon all for order, unless , or until the petition for change is enacted in a lawful manner.

i AM IN DISTRICT 24, IF ANYONE IS INTERESETED IN FORMING SUCH FOR CITIZENS INITIATIVES, REFERENDUM..

CAMI OLSON
29 SOUTH STATE #715
SALT lAKE CITY, UTAH

..

Report Abuse

By: Tom (2) @ 08/28/2008, 4:40 PM

"Arrogant Jackass"

Perfect descriptive name for almost all of our so called leaders in the Utah legislature!

hopefully the voters of Provo will finally see the true Bramble and throw his lame butt out of office. As long as I am wishing for miracles, I also hope that the voters of Utah get wise and get rid of all of these self serving neo-cons who have completely ruined the integrity and honor of the GOP.

Report Abuse

By: ScottH @ 08/28/2008, 7:32 AM

Rep. Steve Urquhart has put out several blog posts on this issue demonstrating that the Salt Lake newspaper you quote basically made up the story about Bramble. The paper has apologized privately, but not publicly. It's good to get the news. But it's even better to report it correctly.

Report Abuse

By: Tom @ 08/28/2008, 6:22 AM

I don't think you quite understand. Valentine didn't "dismiss" a previous idea to change the law. He never said he wanted to change the law in the first place! Please stop reading other newspapers who get it wrong, instead please perform your own research instead of take the word of another newspaper.

Report Abuse


Add Your Comment


Name:
Comment:
Security Code:
Type the characters to the left in the box exactly as they appear.
Before posting you must check the box to agree to our posting guidelines.
Utah Find It

Utah Find It