OCR Text |
Show As We See the Issues Grand County and Utah voters this year have some very important decisions to make as i they enter the polling booths, and they don't all concern candiates. j This year, four items are listed at the bottom of the ballot in Utah (plus consolidation in Grand County), and they deserve the closest scrutiny by the voters. With one exception, we at The Times are opposed to these issues, for reasons we will list. Proposition No. 1: This is a proposal to change Utah's constitution, placed on the ballot by the Utah Legislature, which would merely bring Utah's Constitution into conformity with federal laws regarding voting age and residency requirements. While we feel that thirty days of residency is certainly not enough to make the average voter familiar with local candidates and issues, the fact that many Americans are a very mobile society this day and age, moving from one location to another as their jobs demand quite often precludes them ever staying in one place long enough to qualify to vote and that is not right. We favor the passage of this "housekeeping" change in the Constitution. The Intiatives: The three other propositions on the ballot are Initiative Proposals-that means they were put there by petitions signed by Utahns asking for laws to be passed by popular vote rather than by the Legislature. We oppose all three of these propositions for these reasons: Intiative Proposal A: This petition came in answer to an announcement by the Utah Board of Health that they would soon require all culinary water systems in the State of Utah to be fluoridized. We have not agreed with opponents of fluoridation in the past, simply because we have never beiieved that fluoride in water-in 'specified small amounts-was anything but beneficial to dental hygiene. We still feel that way. The Utah Board of Health tells us that our water systems should contain chlorine, and even though we don't like the smell, we don't complain, because we know it is sound medical advice. They advised us to take precautions against Swine Flu, and most of us took advantage of their advice. They feel that Citizens should vote against this proposition. But don't be fooled by the reverse wording in this proposal: If you are for fluoride, Vote NO. If you are against fluoride, vote YES. Initiative Proposal B: This recall act, we feel, should be defeated. The concept of recall itselfwhere public officials can be made to stand to election if petitions for such election during a term of office receives the right percentage of registered voters-is a sound principal in theory. The fact that Grand County's proposed Consolidation issue has a recall provision, is one of the things we like best about it. But we disagree with Initiative Proposal B, because we feel that the percentage figures are much too low. It would only take around 150 to 200 signatures in Grand County, for instance, to force a special election for an official and that's too few. We are sorely afraid that public governmental units would constantly be harrassed by recall petitions if percentages were set as low as 10. That would not be in the interest of good government. This proposal should be defeated, but Utah's Legislature should immediately look into a more realistic recall law, with percentage figures somewhere around 25 of registered voters. Initiative Proposal C: On the surface, the forced limiting of state budgets by law sounds pretty good. But the more we look into the implications of this proposal, the more frightening it becomes. Initiative Proposal C would limit the size of Utah's budget to the same figure of ' the current budget for a period of five years. In addition it would require the phasing out of ALL federal funds over the same time frame. Utahns get back from the federal government much more than they pay in federal taxex, so the proposal could only guarantee higher taxes in the future, and would rule out even the newest federal assist to local governments the law signed last week which would pay "in-lieu" property tax payments to counties with high percentages of federal land. The proposal also makes no provision for inflation, so the budget as a matter of fact would be reduced each year as a result of inflationary factors. We feel that the passage of this act would be disastrous, and urge voters to vote NO. |