UEG’s Creative New Deadline
By Curt Bramble
Utah State Senator
As I read Utah’s Election Code, I believe the claims made by UEG of a special August deadline lie beyond the plain language and intent of the law.
Maybe a judge will side with them, but it would be a stretch. Here is a quick walk through some relevant sections of the law:
“The sponsors shall qualify the petition for the regular general election ballot no later than one year after the application is filed.”
This is the language the UEG may use to convince people that they have a special deadline to collect signatures. However, this single sentence doesn’t exist in a vacuum and it does not grant petitioners the absolute right of one year to do their work — it simply requires them to take no more than one year to qualify the petition. They still need to meet the specific deadlines established in 20A-7-206:
“In order to qualify an initiative petition for placement on the regular general election ballot, the sponsors shall deliver each signed and verified initiative packet . . . no later than April 15 before the regular general election.”
(Other deadlines are also set in 20A-7-206 to meet the logistical needs of all of the legal, printing and other tasks necessary to prepare an initiative for the ballot.)
20A-7-203(1) directs petitioners to include a date stamp at the top that identifies the election date on which citizens who sign are seeking to have the petition voted. The UEG petition, circulated and signed, clearly expressed the sponsors’ intent that this initiative petition be voted upon in November, 2010.
20A-7-207(2) says once the petitions are received the Lt. Governor must declare them to be “sufficient” or “insufficient” by June 1. On June 1st the UEG’s petition was declared to be insufficient.
“Once a petition is declared insufficient, the sponsors may not submit additional signatures to qualify the petition for the pending regular general election.”
“If the sponsors fail to qualify the petition for that ballot, the sponsors must (i) submit a new application; (ii) obtain new signature sheets; and (iii) collect signatures again.”
20A-7-202(5)(f) establishes a two-year cooling off period before the same initiative can be resubmitted.
Most people support ethics reform. Of that group, some like the UEG proposal and some don’t. I don’t. However, even if the proposal were perfect – forcing it by sophistry through a loophole beyond law or legislative intent should cause some concern — about their ethics.
UEG’s failure doesn’t mean ethics reform is dead. If anything the policy issues are more alive than ever. Here is the ethics reform the legislature supported in 2009. Here are the more sweeping changes of 2010. And the discussion continues this summer in the Interim Ethics Committee.
We’ll get where we need to be. And we’ll get there without the unintended consequences of the proposed initiative.
I’d encourage readers to stay informed and pursue the change through elections and the careful, incremental legislative process.
[Comments deleted by a blog administrator - see note, below.]
Hey. Thoughtful comments are welcome here. Personal attacks are not.
Although we probably disagree, you bring up some points about the issue that may be worth discussing. Care to rephrase?
Curtis Bramble’s explanation is very good. His opinion may be legally correct, hopefully it isn’t. However, as a legislator in the state of Utah for many years, his efforts in my opinion, to put into place a honest and useful ethics system has been a massive failure worth noting. On appearance the good old boys system is in place and functioning well. If we follow the dollars from legislator to legislator we will notice who has the power. In my opinion the statement that we will get there and that the 2009 and 2010 reform are sweeping tells us how bad the situation really is. Donations from one legislator to another are wrong and are used to buy or purchase power and position. This needs to stop. The latest legislative reforms are in my opinion for appearance only. Now they can say they have passed ethics reform. It’s funny to see Curtis Bramble complain about the ethics of the people attempting to pass reform. It is sad that they have to go to such extensive efforts just to get it on the ballot. It appears Bramble and any other legislator who is against this reform is afraid of ethics reform and know that it will easily be approved by the voters when it is placed on the ballot.
I’m not in the legislature. I support good ethics.
And I very much oppose this petition.
I oppose it based on the content. I oppose it based on who is sponsoring and supporting it. And I oppose it based on the manner in which supporters have been attempting to circumvent established rules and laws to get it onto the ballot without the usual checks and balances.
If you don’t like the way Curt Bramble votes, vote him out of office. If Chris Buttar’s views or the way he expresses them offend you, then vote him out of office. On the flip side, if someone really dislikes Patrice Arent or Scott McCoy that someone should convince a majority of voters in those districts to elect someone else.
I do NOT want to turn over ANY political power to a self-selected group. Double so when they have their own set of ethical problems. Tripply so when most all of them are left leaning politicians who have had their agenda rejected by the majority of voters.
The commentary and concerns at http://www.unethicalreform.org/ is spot on.
So too are the RKBA concerns in GOUtah’s Alert #323 available under the Alerts link at http://www.goutahorg.org/
I’d like someone to tell me what this petition does good, that the newly enacted ethics commission doesn’t do.
Yes, I’m for ethics. And BECAUSE I’m for real ethics, I’m opposed to this petition.