And so, when voters propose a reform that doesnt sit well with the majority of legislators — and what reform worth its salt would not run afoul of politicians? — those solons choose to attack the fundamental right of citizens to control their government by undermining the initiative process. And in so doing, to enhance their monopoly on the states political agenda.
In Utah, the attack on the ballot initiative process has been led by two conservative Republicans, Senator Howard A. Stephenson and Representative Brad L. Dee. These legislators authored Senate Bill 275 and House Bill 112, respectively, both of which have passed the legislature on party-line voting and now await a signature or veto from Republican Governor Gary Herbert.
Stephensons SB 275 makes it easier for folks who sign a petition to remove their names if they change their mind or feel they misunderstood the measure when they signed. Theres nothing necessarily wrong with that, of course. But the bill goes much further.
While petition signatures must be notarized, SB 275 changes the law to remove that requirement — but only when removing ones signature. Much more consequential, the main thrust of the legislation is to extend the period during which a signer can remove his or her signature.
Current law allows signatures to be removed until county clerks, who verify the signatures, turn the finished petitions into the state. Under SB 275, signatures could be withdrawn for an additional 30 days after the Lt. Governor receives the petitions.
The Utah Republican Party has discussed doing just that, running a campaign to contact and urge signers to remove their signatures. The legislation takes effect immediately and is being applied to the ethics measure. And others, about which legislators just rarely seemed very positive.
There are many problems with allowing signature removal for 30 days after petition signatures are turned in. It makes it that much less pleasant to sign a petition because you know youll have people calling you and filling your mailbox urging you to take your name off. And then calls urging you to stay onboard the petition, of course.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a Washington state case, Doe v. Reed, concerning signer privacy versus public disclosure of petition signers. It could have implications for a law in which legislators or political parties are targeting petition signer and threatening their own members with ostracism for signing a petition to put a law to a public vote.
Back in Utah, one county GOP has already required their candidates to take a loyalty oath declaring they had not signed the ethics petition.
This signature removal scheme also turns the process into chaos by encouraging those who oppose a measure to sign its petition, thus fooling the proponents into thinking they have enough signatures. After the petition is tuned in, these individuals can then hop off the measure, sinking the effort. This is especially easy because of Utahs draconian requirement that 10 percent of the vote must be reached in 26 out of 29 senate districts.
Proponents will have to collect tens of thousands of extra signatures to compensate.
House Bill 122 is even more blatantly unfair, arbitrary and disingenuous. Introduced by Rep. Brad Dee, the legislation simply removes deadlines for the courts to rule on challenges to an initiative.
The argument is that the courts should not have to rush their decisions. Haste makes waste. But if the deadlines in current law are too constrictive, one should increase the time allowed. Not end all limits whatsoever.
HB 112 allows Utah courts to effectively pocket veto any initiative by simply not ruling on a challenge. Would such a thing happen? In other states, it has.
This is supposed to be conservative law-making? Arbitrarily empowering courts and disempowering citizens?
There is a natural friction between legislators and any process that allows citizens to go around them, to trump them. But thats the democratic process. Thats the key part of the deal we citizens made with you fellows.
Thats the law of the land.
Citizens have a right to petition their government and to have an open and accessible process to reform government. The supremacy of the citizenry cannot be supported and opposed on an issue by-issue-basis. Thats arbitrary, tyrannical government.
One either stands for the basic idea of government of, by and for the people or one does not. A rule of law is one thing we should all stand for. All the time.
Great Moments in Human Rights: Mandated “Emotional Support” Animals in College Dorms | Daniel J. Mitchell