OCR Text |
Show 6B Emery County - Tuesday. Progress, Castle Dale. Utah October 27, 1998 Do you know what date could meet these two DORIS QUINN Progress editor By In this weeks edition of the Emery County Progressyou will see four letters informing you why the authors believe you should vote for against some of the propositions. Are you like me, do you ask yourself just what are these propositions on the ballot all about? Utahnswillhavesixproposi-tionon the ballot that propose changes to the Utah Constitution. The six propositions would make changes to five constitu- s tional articles. The Utah Foundation is a private, nonprofit public service agency established to study and encourage the study of state and local government in Utah, and the relations of taxes and public expenditures to the Utah economy. A background of each proposition has been made by the Utah Foundation and published in its September 1998, report number 617, Utah Foundation Research Report. These background reports are being reprinted here in the Progress to help voters understand the propositions and cast informed votes. Proposition 1, is the Leg- islative Eligibility Resolu- tion. of the Utah Constitution establishes the legislative branch of state government. The article sets the times of the legislat ive sessions, terms of senators and representatives, rules for governing each body and the powers of the legislative branch. Section 5 of Article VI establishes who is eligible to run for the offices of senator and representative. The section has been amended twice before. It originally required candidates to be residents of their districts for one year but in 1972, voters passed a proposition that changed the requirement to six months. The second change to this article occurred in 1982 when voters added the following. sentence, No person elected to the office of senator or representative shall continue to serve in that office after ceasing to be a resident of the district from which elected. Proposition 1 will amend the constitution so that candidates Article VI running for the state legislature senator or represent at ive ( will be required to be a resident of the state not just for three years but for the three years just prior to the last date for filing for the office. They must also be a resident of their district for six consecutive months immediately prior to the last date for filing for the office. The purpose of these two changes is to insure the candidates are more closely tied to the state and their dist ricts than the constitution now requires. Under current law, a candi youre voting for on all those propositions? re- quirements over a number of years. Bv requiring the candidate to be a resident of the state for t he last three consecutive years and his district for the last six consecutive months, that possi-bilitis eliminated. Some have expressed concerns that this new requirement may indeed prevent some Utahns from runoffice. for ning For example, is a Utahn whose employer assigns him to work in another state or country for a period of time eligible to run for the legislature upon ret urn or must that person wait three years before running for a legislative seat? Is a Utahn who goes out of state for graduate school eligible upon return or must this person wait three years? What about someone sent overseas on an ecclesiastical assignment or a professor who teaches out of state on an exchange or visiting scholar programs? Must these individuals wait three years before they are eligible for the legislature? Proposition will not change current residency laws passed by the legislature in 1993. A person is a resident of Utah if the person: - has a principal place of residence within Utah; - has a present intention to continue residency within Utah. The law goes further by defining principal place of residence as that place in which the persons habitation is fixed and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of v long-standin- g 1 returning. The law specifically states that a person has not lost his vote of 61 to 0 with 14 absent and the Senate by 20 to 4 with 5 absent.. It is supported by the Constitutional Revision Commission. Proposition 2 is the Resolution Repealing Marital Property Provisions. Article XXII Section 2 of the Utah Constitution was written (1896) when the legal status of women was different from today. In the latter part of the 19th century, women in the United States did not have the same property rights as men. This was especially true in divorce. This section of the constitution attempted to ensure property rights for women. Two years later, in 1898, the legislature passed a law almost identical in wording to Article XX Section 2 of the constitution. Today women, independent of this constitutional clause, have the right to own and transfer property in their name before, during, and after marriage. Given the changes in federal and state law and numerous court cases reinforcing equality of the sexes, there is no need for Articles XX, Section 2. It may even be unconstitu- tional under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution which prohibits treating men and women differently under the law unless there is a compelling government interest in such different treatment. In order to make clear the states position on equal treatment of property, the legislature, in 1991, passed a law declaring that neither spouse is personally responsible for the separate debts, obligations, or liabilities of the other: contracted or incurred before mar- residence if that person leaves his home to go into a foreign riage; contracted or incurred count ry or into another state or during marriage, except family into another voting precinct expenses...; contracted or inwithin Utah for temporary pur- curred after divorce... However, sin,ce state law does poses with the intention of renot supercede the constitution turning. It seems clear that this part it was still felt by experts that of the law adequately addresses Article XX Section 2 needed to be repealed or amended bethe above concerns. Generali-- , individuals who cause it no longer addresses an are residents of Utah and leave existing concern and may actuthe state for employment, ally be unconstitutional. school, or other reasons, keep Proposition 2 is supported their residency if, when they by the Constitutional Revision leave, they have the intention Commission. It passed the of returning after a predeterHouse of Representatives by a vote of 68 to 0 with seven abmined period of time. Current statutes state that sent and the Senate 20 to 4 any candidacy is considered with five absent. valid if the candidate files the Proposition 3 is the Acdeclaration of candidacy, pays ceptance of Trust Lands the filing fee and declares that Resolution. s he meets the qualifications. of Approximately Only when someone files a all lands in the state of Utah are written objection challenging owned by the federal governa candidates residency with the ment. About 23 percent is prilieutenant governor will such vately owned and four percent are Indian reservations. objections be answered. Once an objection is filed, The balance, approximately the lieutenant governor must seven percent, or 3.7 million decide within 48 hours. The acres, is owned by the state of decision by the lieutenant govUtah. These state lands can be ernor can be appealed to a state divided into three categories: district court. sovereign lands, agency lands, Proposition passed the and institutional and school House of Representative by a trust lands. two-third- 1 The majority of state lands are the school trust lands which are scattered throughout the state in almost a checkerboard fashion. These lands were offered to the state by Congress in Utahs Enabling Act which stated that upon admission into the union sections two, sixteen, thirty-twand thirty-siin every township. ..are hereby granted to said state for the support of common schools. The Enabling Act also created a permanent school fund by That the proceeds of lands herein granted for educational purposes.. .shall constitute a permanent school fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of said schools... Utah accepted these terms in Article XX of the state constitution: All lands of the State that have been, or may hereafter be granted to the State by o, x Congress, ...are hereby accepted, and are declared to be the public lands of the State; and shall be held in trust for the people, to be disposed of as may be provided by the law, for the respective purposes for which they have been or may be granted... This grant by the federal government to the state was complete upon admission to the Union. Until recently, there has been criticism that the school trust lands have not been administered professionally to seek the best income producing potential. As a result, critics argue, the permanent school fund is not as large as it could be and the states public school system has been harmed. To address these criticisms, the legislature reorganized the administration of the states lands. In 1994, they created the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. The legislature charged this new agency with administering the school and institutional trust lands in a way as to maximize revenue from those lands for the beneficiaries. The main focus of this new agency was the school trust lands, the revenue from which goes to the support of the states public schools. The already existing Division of State Lands and Forestry kept responsibility for sovereign lands of the state, while all other agencies that held lands were separately responsible for the lands under their jurisdiction. Proposition 3 is, to some degree, a recognition of these changes in state law and reaffirmation of the state position that the role of the state relative to the school trust lands is to administer them in a manner most advantageous to the beneficiaries, which are the states public schools. Proposition 3 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 72 to 0 with three ab sent and the Senate 22 to 0 with seven absent. Proposition 4 is the Resolution Eliminating Voting Rights of Convicted Felons. Article IV of the Utah Constitution is titled Elections and Rights of Suffrage. Section 1 5 guarantee the right to vote for both sexes, requires voters to be 18 years of age or older, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the state for 30 days prior to any election. F urthermore, voters are protected from arrest on election days, unless for treason, felony or breach of the peace, and immune from militia duty on election days unless in time of war or public danger. Section 6 ofArticle IV states: that a mentally incompetent person, or person convicted of treason, or crime against the elective franchise may not vote or be eligible for elective office in the state The proposed change to this article by Proposition 4 adds any person convicted of a felony to the list of those persons ineligible to vote or hold elective office in Utah. The reason that Utahs constitution prevents those convicted of some crimes (treason and crimes against the elective franchise) and not all convicted felons, is probably due to Utahs unique history of polygamy. Many Utahns during our territorial history were convicted of bigamy, a federal crime, and served terms in the territorial through penitentiary. much difference in the voting behavior of Utahs inmates. According to the Elections Office in the Lieutenant Governors Office, 57 of the possible 4,272 inmates requested absentee ballots in 1996 and 48 inmates mailed their ballots back. Despite 46 of 50 states having laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, there is opposition to disenfranchising convicts. Opponents of laws disenfranchising felons make four main arguments. First, such laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment states that no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. To deny to felons the right to vote is a violation ofthis amendment. Second, such laws violate the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment states that neither the national nor state governments can deny the right of a citizens to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Third, such laws violate the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a law that declares a person guilty of a crime without a trail. Such laws existed in colonial times and were feared by framers of the constitution. Fourth, such laws violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punish- Section 6 of Article XX is worded so as to prevent some convicted persons from voting, but not all. Proposition 4, if passed, will place Utah with the vast majority of states denying the franchise to prisoners while incarcerated. Once released, or placed on parole, convicts may again become eligible to vote. The 1998 legislature passed House Bill 190 which addresses some important specifics dealing with this proposition. The bill goes into effect upon passage of Proposition 4. House Bill 190 states that each convicted felons right to register to vote and to vote in an election is restored when one of three events takes place: the felon is sentenced to probation, the felon is granted parole or has completed the term of incarceration. Several years ago a contro- versy developed at the state prison when Draper City, in which the state prison is located, expressed concerns that inmates might be able to elect themselves to a city office. The legislature corrected this potential problem by passing a law in 1993 that declared that inmates were not residents of the voting district in which the prison is located but of the voting district where they resided before incarcerated. ment. One expert has concluded that the federal courts, have reviewed each of these arguments and found them unconvincing. Finally opponents of Proposition 4 believe that society ought to be helping convicts get involved in society in legal and positive ways rather than preventing them from doing so. Being allowed to vote while still in prison is a small but important opportunity to participate in a society that the convict without causing harm to anyone. Among the 45 states that disenfranchise convicts, there is substantial variation. Connecticut disenfranchises all convicted felons guilty except those convicted of nonsupport. Georgia disenfranchises only felons convicted of moral turpitude which is decided on a cases by case basis. Mississippi disenfranchises felons of only 10 specific felonies. states continue Thirty-tw- o to disenfranchise felons while they are on parol or probat ions. All of the 46 states that disenfranchise felons provide for rein statement' of this right though the process of regain varies dramatically. Most states allow for restoWhether Proposition 4 ration upon completion of the passes or fails, it will not make sentence. However, some states make it very difficult. In five states the felon must receive a pardon from the governor. In Texas, the must wait two years from complet ion of sentence and in Mississippi, s must receive a the vote from both houses of the legislature. Proposition 4 passed the Utah House of Representative 63 to 3 and the Utah Senate 32 to 1. Proposition 5 is the Resomay-hel- n n 1998 CHEVROLET MALIBU Automatic, Tilt, Cruise, Power Locks, Cassette Pov. or Windows, f -- 4 epcTTW' d-- ) z f Zm- - 2 TO CHOOSE FROM 8C208 & 8C089 1998 CHEVROLET BLAZER 4 DOOR 4X4 SUV 4.3 Vortec V6, Automatic, Tilt Wheel, Cruise Control, Power Windows, Power Door Locks, Cassette, Roof Rack mo. tax of 5 14 34 for a total monthly payment of 00 due at delivery plus 53 payments Optional i.iyrncni at end is 7.464 60 Biaer -- plus tax of 5 9 74 fur a total monthly payment of 5348 74 00 due at delivery plus 65 wyments Optional payrner it at end is 512 192 80 Rebate Available Malipu--plu- s 5253 34 SI "Join The Family of Happy Owners Your Local GM Connection Mountain View MotorsDavis Crofts 1355 S. Carbon Ave., Price CHEVROLET Vi 1 FA li-J CMC CADILLAC IAIU fA 535 E. BU1CK I Li FA U-- 637-259- 8 Main, Price GLDS J 637-011- 0 f PONTIAC Al til FAL fAIO'm two-third- lution Establishing Wildlife Initiative Numbers. Proposition 5 amends Article VI Section 1 of the Utah Constitution which creates the Legislative branch of government. It states that the legislative power ofthe state shall be vested in: a Senate and House of Representatives which make up the Legislature, and in, the people of the state through the use of the initiative process. This section states that Utahns may initiate any de- sired legislation and have it submitted to the vote of the people for approval or rejections. Initiatives were one of three tools developed in many states in the early part of this century in an attempt to make government more responsive to the (Continued on page 10B) V t |