OCR Text |
Show Arguments Against The Constitution was written to eliminate The proposed article was rushed through a special session of the legislature without time to go through the regular legislative process. It may be we need some changes, this proposal certainly is not the answer. government tyrany, not to have the government chain people down by limiting their powers. This constitutional revision will take away YOl'R right to have a candidate run against ajudge in an election. It limits individual rights to remove judges from office by permitting UNOPPOSED RETENTION ELECTIONS every ten years for Supreme C ourt J udges and every six years for other judges. There are many legislators who voted to have the proposed amendment on the ballot, yet themselves will vote Rebuttal to Arguments against Proposition No. 3 Utahns respect the U.S. Constitution and the principles it outlines. A most important principle is the need for an independent judiciary. The constitution provides for the President to appoint federal judges, subject to review by the U.S. Senate. If approved, federal judges are appointed for life. Proposition 3 proposes a similar method for selecting state judges. However, Proposition 3 contains additional safeguards: nominating commissions to screen applicants, and periodic review of judges by the people. Proposition 3 actually includes more protections for selecting and reviewing state judges than the U.S. Constitution does for. of government should the judiciary police itself without scrutiny from the people? (8) Why put the elitist Judicial Council & Judicial Conduct Commission, two functioning committees, in the Constitution thus making them difficult to eliminate or change should the need arise? This constitutional revision goes beyond the point of forming a EXCLUSIVE CUT!. It allows the Judicial Branch to rise above the level of the people instead of serving the citizenry. This atrocity is perpetuated by the judiciary for the convenience of the judiciary and it should be offensive to federal judges. Selection methods similar to Proposition 3 are used in many other states. These procedures have been very effective at attracting good judges and removing poor ones. It has been shown that poor judges are often more likely to be removed with retention elections than with contested elections. FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE. Proposition 3 Representative Francis Hatch Merrill Contested judicial elections raise the possiblity of serious abuse. For example, election campaigns require money, usually raised by contributions. For judicial elections, money comes primarily from lawyers and other persons who regularly appear before judges. This situation can easily result in conflicts of interest and compromise the independence and integrity of the judiciary. 4280 South 838 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 The people need to know that Proposition 3 proposes drastic undesirable changes in our constitution. There are two or three good suggestions within the proposal, however, several very bad provisions are included within the package. The good provisions should be submitted to the people than "take it or leave it" in a single package. Sandberg, Senator E. Verl Asay Senate Chairman, Judiciary Study Committee 4857 South 1950 West, Taylorsville, Utah 84118 government allows only one candidate per office on the ballot? (unopposed retention elections) (5) What form of government eliminates scrutiny by the people? (6) What form of government muzzles the people in the balloting system? (7) Under the American check& balance system AGAINST 3. Senators Barlow, Matheson, Overson, Bangerter concur! Ask yourself these questions: (1) What form of government has uncontested elections? (2) What kind of government does not allow competition in candidates? (3) What kind of government has moved justice away from the people by making government unaccountable to the people through the voting process? (4) What kind of Vote Proposition 3. AGAINST Proposition No. against Vote rather Proposition 3 is one of the most thoroughly studied proposals ever presented to Utah voters. It has been carefully reviewed by state and national authorities for nearly five years. Most of the changes have not been suggested by the courts, but by citizens concerned that Utah maintain an effective court system. Proposition 3 will give unprecedented power and authority to the judicial branch of government. For instance, the present constitution reads that "judges may be vote of both houses of the removed from office by legislature. This gives the people through their representatives some control. Proposition 3 would remove this safety valve and the judicial branch would account only to themselves for their action. This would also take from the people the inherent right to elect judges. This would also give the Supreme Court unprecedented power and authority to govern the practice of law in Utah, including who would be admitted to the bar and under what circumstances. two-third- s VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 3! Senator Karl N. Snow, Jr. Chairman, Constitutional Revision Committee 1847 North Oak Lane, Provo, Utah 84604 Representative G. LaMont Richards House Chairman, Higher Education Study Committee P.O. Box 25717, Salt Lake City, Utah 84125 17- |